@Matthew Dawood Khaghani seriously? It's like telling your grandpa to run 10 miles, you CANNOT compare an 80's car with today's car, back then these 240s and the saab 900 were the safest cars you could buy. Today all the cars must be safe or they won't even get into production. Things were different back in the 80's with not a lot of tech you know..

How did the moose make out?

Matthew Dawood Khaghani wrong! I totaled a 2007 Chrysler with my 1988 Volvo 740, my 740 I just bent back into shape, replaced the hood bumper and lights and continued driving. Have you ever watched any crash test videos on BRAND NEW cars? Watch small overlap crash tests , then look at small overlap tests on any Volvo. An old Volvo would obliterate a new Nissan Sentra.

@@BrandonTejadaSkates The older cars are much more durable in that you can keep driving them afterwards. The crumple zones on newer cars are different so they total easily, but the passenger area is extremely stiff and overall you're much safer in a modern car. The old Volvo's and Saab's were the best of their time though.

@@simonvs5401 oh shu5 the fuck up the 80s had plenty of tech Maybe not in India a shithole piss poor country 😁😂😂😂

No , the gravity did.

It's an old mild steel coffin

I flipped one into a tree going 100 kmh and hit it roof first, Roof bended slightly and it saved my life from closing in on me

No classic's very safe TBH, I'd say it's one of the better ones, but any modern car would devastate one in a head on crash.

@@user-sf7kl9uh7ksolely because modern cars are made dangerously heavy. Just don’t get hit head on and you’re good.

@@obeseperson You're wrong, even a modern 1000kg shopping trolley like a Fiesta, or even a Smart car is safer. They're made using high tensile steels, with highly engineered load paths, and frontal crash members to spread the crash energy. Take a 240 and a Smart car both doing 40 mph and crash them offset. The modern car will compress the soft mild steel of the 240 all the way up to the bulkhead, and crush the passenger compartment. The modern car will have damage across it's whole frontal area, there will be very little or no footwell intrusion, the A Pilar will show little distortion, the passenger compartment will retain it's shape. Then loads of silly people will claim a wizard stole the Volvo's engine, or cut it's structure through. Or that the test 'wasn't done in the right way' etc etc. So you can prevent others people from making mistakes? Why wear a seatbelt at all if you're so good at predicting the future?

@@user-sf7kl9uh7kidk why there are people out there who believe that classic cars are safer than modern cars. People used to die in what are considered small impacts today because classic cars are deadly.

А в россии если лада попала в дтп , и ты позвонишь на завод, тебя отправят в эротическое путешествие

The first genuinely safe Volvo was the 240

And everyone in the world and Sweden said Amen 👍

@Matthew Dawood Khaghani They are insanely reliable and safe. Albeit, less safe than most modern cars, these cars are without a doubt safer than most cars built in the 1990s. If you are in the market for a classic car, these cars make sense. It is not pathetic to appreciate a great car. This car was very advanced for the time.

@@rileymcmonigle9614 The way you've duplicated that name could constitue harassment.

@rileymcmonigle9614 Stop duplicating names, they're not safe any modern car would crush one.

The car did what it was designed to do - crumple at a controlled and predictable rate so as to reduce/dissipate/distribute the impact forces of the 35mph crash and lessen the crash energy transmitted to the passengers. The visible crumpling of the front structure of the car is therefore a good thing to be observed in such a crash - not a bad thing.

Even one of today's cars would be destroyed - written off by the insurance company. No car is driving away from such a crash!

"Destroying", "decimated", "crocks" are all vague and unscientific terms that should not be used when trying to prove a scientific point. When you provide empirical evidence to back your belief, rather than anecdotal, than we can begin to truly discuss the merits of "modern" versus older cars.

@Matthew Dawood Khaghani lol, you must be like the white knight of modern cars.. "Yeah, b-b-but a modern car would distintegrate these pieces of crap!" Sheesh, no shit Sherlock.. We all know that. But for their time, these cars were impressive as hell and they are still unbelievably safe in solo crashes. Buying an old Volvo you take the risk of fatality in a 2 car collision. But at the same time you pay less than third of the price and you get to drive away from under 25 mph crashes, I shit you not. Rear end a new car at 25 and off you go to the shops to buy a new one.. So whatever you're trying, you're preaching to the choir.. The choir just doesn't give a crap about old cars being unsafe. It's about preference. I bet you won't be driving that Renault Modus after 300 000 miles and 21 years without hick ups.

@Matthew Dawood Khaghani yeah but why you gotta state the obvious gazillion times? Trust me, people know without you reminding them literally every waking moment..

Indeed. That 3-point seatbelt doing it's job.

the other car driver :)

@Matthew Dawood Khaghani volvo 242 is already indestructible

I sure would like to have airbags to prevent my head from hitting the steering wheel at 35 mph like the test dummy in this DL did.

Of course it would be better with an airbag, but at the time it had the lowest HIC ever recorded, so it's not bad at all. Later 240s had an airbag though.

If everyone drove these, Body repair shops would be out of business. A 5mph crash cost's 10k with modern cars, someone must be making good money out of it.

Perhaps, with all those crashes, it's time to hang-up the keys! lol

@@bobjohnson205 Yeah, he must have spilt loads of vodka over many a pair of jeans.

It's true. My dad had a 245 and once we crashed into an E34. The back end of that Bimmer was completely f*cked, yet the Volvo just got it's grill , headlamps and bonnet replaced the next day(even the front bumper pretty much survived the crash). My dad sold it for about 600$ the next year and thought it was just too old , thought it met it's limits. Now though, I want one so bad.. And prices are doubled nowadays, too!

my aunty got rear ended in her E34 by a fiesta and it was a complete write off and the E34 just needed a new bumper haha. Don't buy a fiesta

lee nevin surprised the fiesta even scratched the paint.

@Matthew Dawood Khaghani Modern cars have bumpers designed to crumple. Older cars do not. In crashes like the ones previously mentioned it makes sense that more damage was done to the Fiesta. The passengers would be safer in a Fiesta, and at high speeds, any new car is safer.

@Henry Discipline The 240 wouldn't do well in modern crash testing but it was extremely safe by the standards of the 1980s. In 1982 there were few if any safer vehicles on the road, maybe a Mercedes S-Class. It wasn't until the 1990s that midsize cars started to catch up with the 240, and at that point the 850 was introduced in 1992. The 850 did well in the same moderate overlap crash test they use today, it had good head restraints and a very strong roof, and with side impact airbags (on 1995+ models) and SIPS it would probably at least pass the side impact. October 18, 2019 1:31 pm

Did you order 'to go' at Starbucks? lol

65 in a 25? Shiiiit that’s just how we roll, 40 over the speed limit at all times

Why were you speeding like that in an old crock? Sounds like you're trying to kill yourself or someone else. Don't be proud of such recklessness

Liquid Chrome Mercedes are claimed to have invented crumple zone/ rigid cell design in the 50ies. The Volvo Safety Cage is usually quoted as 1944. Those two are related, but not the same. Crumple zones are specifically designed to absorb the impact at as close to a specific consistent rate, thus limiting deceleration to a safe upper limit for a given initial speed. Crumple zones are specifically a design method for re-distributing the impact energy. A rigid safe space is necessary but not sufficient for crumple zones to work as such. I think all of these ideas had been floating around, it will come down not simply to the first company to claim it, but how successfully these were implemented at various points in history by the makers. You've collected buzzwords uncritically and sloppily. The lambda sonde is not a safety feature, it's an engine efficiency feature and emission control system. Laminated safety glass had been invented around 1905-1910 and was mandatory in UK for windshield on all vehicles in 1930 and standard on Ford worldwide. So Volvo was late to the party. 3 point seatbelt is indeed a Volvo original and extremely relevant. We are all very thankful to Volvo for this, especially for their decision not to make it a proprietary invention but to allow open use. Side airbags, which are btw not an invention but an innovation, were indeed first developed by a Swedish company and a Volvo supplier, and first appeared in 1995 Volvo model year. However they were available to other companies too, and those also started offering them soon after. As to the relevance... i'm not certain how to rate this. It was obvious in 1990 that side impact safety tests would be relevant in 1997-ish, however never to the same speed at frontal collision safety. Side airbags are never quite without issues. I'd rather rely on other means of protection. As for original iteration of side impact protection system from 2001... this seems like a failed experiment, because it didn't work well as a whole, like side impact protection was possibly improved but offset frontal or rear was badly compromised. City safety - interesting. I am not actually sure whether it doesn't decrease actual safety - i wouldn't claim one way or another, but this needs a deep a scientific study which takes driver's behaviour into account. One company already copied it, so it appears to be relevant. Pedestrian airbag - a very interesting and potentially highly relevant innovation indeed, but it might be too early to tell. One of my favourites is not on the list - traction control and stability control. Originating from Toyota, then copied and improved upon by Bosch, and it's the Bosch version that is typically used by EU car makers, including Volvo. The airbag per se is also not a Volvo invention, but has multiple origins in the US navy and around US car industry. So obviously claiming that "every single safety equipment is invented by Volvo" is grossly incorrect. I think you'll find that while this Volvo behaves really well in a wide-area frontal collision, the passenger cage has a tendency to disintegrate on offset collisions. Mercedes platforms of the 80ies like W123 and W201 however behave exceptionally well both in full area and in offset frontal and rear collisions, and even in side collisions, and they only got better since. So while general design and the intention of design are similar, it is my belief that Mercedes offered a better implementation in those eras, but i'm not sure how it was before. The scarier part is that Volvo vehicles, in my opinion, while they added safety features nominally, they failed to improve structurally for a while till mid 90ies. I don't like marketing and buzzword competitions.

Actually after more research, the sips and side airbag was in 1994, not 1995. The very first model with this equipment was the 850 model, wich also was the very first Volvo with FWD And about the Lambda sond, it is a type of safety, made not only for envirement but also for pedestrians so we won't breathe in dangerous amaount of toxic gas. The Lambda sond reduces the amaount of toxic gas with 95-98% I have buzzwords wich are uncritically and sloppily? And my oppinions about Volvo are "grossly incorrect"?? Think twice before you critisize other peoples choice of words. No offence. And btw, Toyota is most certanly not a good example of safe cars. Toyota sued Volvo for saying safest cars in the world (wich they actually are). After that scandal, Toyota had to eat their words, becuse it didn't take long time to make a fool of themselves by having problem with their brakesystems, wich is a big threat to a carsafety. And that problem caused many accident ending with death. And Toyotas lame excuse about this? "They make too much cars that they don't have time enough to inspect their cars." Yeah, that's a safe carbrand allright... Volvo has a long story with safety tech. Just read their books, clips etc. Safety has always been their main focus. Unlike shitty Toyota...

+Liquid Chrome I agree with Sianna.

Liquid Chrome I agree with you bro I work in a body shop and Volvo are the best on safety!!.

While I love Volvo with all my heart, I gotta give some credit to Toyota for making wonderful engines, you can't compare them with Volvo engines (well maybe the b6304t to a 2jz) but they are different and beautiful in their own way. Volvo For Life though!

It's what Volvos do for a living.

Actually NHTSA conducted this test at 35 mph.

Photos, or it didn't happen

@@user-sf7kl9uh7kWhat do you hope to gain from asking questions on a 10 year old post?

It's not safe, any modern car is much stronger

Photo's, or it didn't happen

except the PT cruiser

@@chrisredfield3240 The way you've duplicated that name could constitute harassment.

@@matthewking5612 harassment too who it's a made up character.

@@chrisredfield3240 I'm just looking out for you dude, some people have been in trouble for it recently.

Not safe today I'm afraid, things have moved on.

They are found in heated garages and occasional car meets.

Don't forget the reliability. Those old European cars are built to last.

No, soft if you hit it in a newer car

I was involved a rear in collision with my Vivl 245 5spd manual on the Southern State Parkway (NY) with a Buick. The only damage to the Colvo was BENT exhaust systems. The Buick's hood buckled and head lights wete damaged . Gret car

Photos, or it didn't happen 😊

“Just a flesh wound”

When this Volvo was tested on February 10, 1982, it was the best performing vehicle ever tested up to that point in this crash test. Over 70 vehicles had been tested by then. The forces on the head were far too low to produce a skull fracture, the dummy barely grazed the steering wheel. Severe injuries such as a skull fracture generally start happening around a HIC of 1,000. This was 550. I'd much rather be in this car than almost any other 1982 car in a crash. Yes, modern cars are much safer, but this Volvo is probably equivalent to the average car from about 1995. By then, it was out of production and had been replaced by the 850. November 5, 2019 1:14 am

@@whattheheck1000 The German TUV did a modern crash test on a rusty 1950s Mercedes Ponton, and it held up surprisingly well. Such pre fuel crisis designs like the Ponton and Volvo 140/240, seem stronger than cars introduced in the '80s and '90s. Fuel economy and making cars lighter really compromised car safety from 1975 to the late '90s.Then NCAP forced them to lift their game.

@@tlake64 Mercedes Ponton very rigid, not as the w124 or w210 in the same conditions, decelerations was 100% deadly in the Ponton even if it had even carried airbags and advanced seat belts

Not everything is stiffness. The Volvo Amazon (Folksam statistics from 1987) with the corresponding belts also performs worse than the VW Beetle in the Folksam statistics for car-to-car accidents in 1991/92. And at the same time less deadly than the MB W120 "Ponton" even if they had added seat belts... The later released MB (1959, 1968 and 1976) had less risk of injury than the older ones, although they were softer (passenger compartment) ... And the 1968 (W114 / W115) did not pass even the less demanding tests (type AMS at 55 km/h and still others under 50 km/h) than those of Euroncap ... And at the same time less deadly than the MB W120 "Ponton", even if they had added seat belts (or even with airbags and belts)... The later coming MB (1959, 1968 and 1976) had less risk of injury than the older ones, although they were softer (passenger compartment)... And the 1968 (W114/W115) failed even the less demanding tests (type AMS at 55 km/h and even others below 50 km/h) than these from Euroncap. .. W124 (which passed the AMS tests at 55k / h against a wall were completely undeformable unlike those tested against each other) tp. its interior was totally undeformable, the clashes at 55 km/h and 50% overlap were not particularly undeformable, so that in the German magazine AMS, where the test was published, medium damage was recognized thigh area / knees and feet both in execution both with and without an airbag (knee airbags did not exist then and would not have been of much use), (because of less deceleration: less risk of injury) and 60kph against a deformable barrier and 50% overlap (less demanding conditions than Euroncap: at 64 km/h and 40% overlap) .. Certain deformations were also noted in the cabin (and the MB w124 was not rusty and the deformable barrier was not used before) (unlike this rusty and "modest" Mercedes 180 pontoon and that they were against a deformable barrier already used before and in "rougher" conditions both in terms of speed and on the overlap!!!) Yes, the W120 pontoon was it (non-deformable in these euroncap conditions), but im Exchange for very high and deadly decelerations ... From the year 2000 it was possible to combine rigid cabins with low risk of injury but with seat belts and airbags (greater "dependence" on their restraint systems, for this they get results unthinkable years ago: both in relation to the 70/80/90 and the predecessors (MB from the 50s)) Manolom.

Very stiff for its time. The class c w202 deformed much more in the same conditions (its room). Obviously, despite everything, the risk of injury on the pontoon was much higher and lethal even if the seat belts had been added. But I doubt very much that, for example, in the side crash it was better than the mb w111 tails of 59 (that tp guaranteed not even a hint of survival, not even at less than 50 km/h, unlike the Vw Beetle (yes, as you are reading and which was demonstrated almost 20 years ago) that I get 13 points out of 16 possible in the side test at 50 k/h x 12 of the class c w202 with its corresponding side airbag included).

They're not safe

Mercedes Benz had crumple zones in 1953 (i drive a Volvo 760)

Actually in 1944 when they made the safety cage. The 200 series has the same platform as the 140-series (1966).

A lot of the body structure was shared, but the 240 had improvements like better crumple zones and an improved steering column, making it safer in crashes.

​@mattiasjohansson1727 Not safe now

Ross it’s the same basic car over its 20 year production span. I’ve seen some nasty looking crashes involving 240s at The junkyard and never seen one where the doors didn’t still open as though nothing happened

Burrito Supreme wait you found some at the junkyard? I don’t believe you because that’s impossible.

Each generation of car is safer than the last.

This isn't safe, a modern city car would wipe one out in a crash.

No

These cars aren't safe by today's standards

@ Still, the driver's head hit the steering wheel pretty hard and looks like one hell of a head injury.

No, the head injury criteria HIC it was very low... The standard for a severe damage is 750 HIC and in this test volvo have 545 for the driver and 380 for the passenger they was probably are survive to this accident

Exactly,.modern tests are far more demanding.

Modern cars are much safer

- M.D.N - anything above 1,000 indicates that serious injury would be likely. On this car, the HICs were low enough on both occupants for likely injury to be minor. May 14, 2019 10:55 am

@@whattheheck1000 thanks.

Euroncap,650 como mucho, entre 1000 y 1250 en las pruebas frontales Ams al principio y 1500 como mucho en las pruebas de Eeuu

I agree with you completely 👍

Geely is basically just funding, nothing more. It's still the safest cars out there. I have to agree with you, Volvo has lost it's spirit, but tbh that happened when the 240/740 and 940 went out of production. Still love 850's and such, but only for their t5's.

Fake news. Developed in Sweden. Made in Sweden and Belgium and USA. Also made in China, but only for the chinese market (all manufacturers who mean business have a factory in China, just common sense).

Actually, this '82 242 was probably 'made' at the Volvo assembly plant in Halifax, Nova Scotia. That is where most 240 series Volvos destined for the North American market were produced.

OldNewSweetRides Only the S90 is built in China - the rest are still built in Sweden or USA.

well I must be insane then. I own a 1982 turbo coupe, a 1995 850 turbo sedan , and a 2003 C70.

Really?! Im 14. years an i have a volvo 244 dl 2.1 bj.75 and i think no cars are better than Volvos! Sorry for my Bad english im from german.

Mit 14 schon ein eigenes Auto? :'D

Na ja, vielleicht läuft sein 240er im Vattis oder Muttis Namen. Er muss bis 18 warten um es fahren zu dürfen.

HateIronMaiden go fuck yourself. coming from a person that knows nothing about good music.