It's probably the case too that the car was loaded

It crumples like 200 km/h

Huh? Just because you have a shitty car does not mean every other car is like that.

Jajajajaja

with all inside in the car

allan deslandes no he still alive singing

allan deslandes--You WILL note CRASH-SPEED is NOT mentioned!!!!!

That was a 60 mph plus head-on crash that one.

Red Devil9---THANKS lotts for the info;--- I just KNEW it was WAYY over the 40 mph they Usally show!!!

if you are travelin without engine like this santana then u are lucky.... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gqySgJqTta3bYas.html

That crash was probably at at least 70mph... No way it would crush like that. Also notice the rear lifting up, showing how fast it must be.

@@xq39 Yeah, I think that Santana test was more of a "facility" test than a crash test of the car itself.

@@xq39 70 mph would be legal speed in Europe when using highways - even in older times. I do not know the speed limits in history but nowadays outside of the towns and villages it is around 56mph. Anyway for the most of the time it looks like the nuclear power station wall test - when they launched F-4 Phantom aircraft against the test wall. Same disappearing of the body on the contact surface.

my dad used to have 1991 Santana and Jetta too. We were in China, so in 90s we both have Jetta and santana. With 1.6l and 5 speed Manuel

Lol

it wasnt normal crash test i guess , no 60 km/h i think around 140 km/h

RELAX.. That particular test wasn't to test the CAR, it was to test the RIG. The car was loaded with 1000Kg of sand and was driven into the solid concrete wall (no deformable barrier) at 100Km/h - far faster than car would ever normally crash.

The Santana is a great car

It was with 100 mph

I own a same year passat. So I hope its better.

But the Santana didn't survive Chuck Norris.

@ATHGT how!?!?

He was hog-tied in the trunk.

@@osc_person he was in the trunk

He was the wall.

+Nut Zack If you crash it at such speeds, it surely looks like that. I'm sure, that was at least 60mph...

+22fret nope. You can work it out by studying the FPS. Its travelling about 19-20m/s, or 42-45mph. Old cars really were this bad. Modern cars, even small ones are magnitudes safer.

that Santana was loaded.

@@stinger15au last I checked modern cars do drive tests at 30 miles per hour and it almost gets near the passengers every time, bending the door indefinitely, and more importantly hitting into the pillar.

yes it was,,for fuck sake,more than half was damaged

But it doesn't the crash test. Santana flied into a wall. The other cars crashed to a deformable object. so it is not representative. BUT santana is a pice of shit

It was at over 80 kph, maybe even 100, not at 64 as most crash tests.

yea, they would have to scrape your remains from the wall & the steering wheel....lol

Do you know the name? I'm trying to know the name for years

@@brutalknife3928 sadly nope

@@brutalknife3928 The closest match to the song playing in this video I could find is a song called "Miss Critical Girl" released back in 2022. Go search it in the search bar.

The santana ? Yeah I think it was going 100 mph with weight in back of the trunk causing it to have more force into the wall.

Jajajaja you are bad jajajajaja good joke 😆🤣

That was a much faster crash. They'd have all gone like that at that speed.

Because the speed is higher. The VW Bettle crash is at 64 kph and the Santana crash at 100 kph or more.

Protector of the Republic Again, cars shouldn't even deform that much when going 90 mph (144 kph)

Red Devil9 how fast tho. If it was 100km that's still quite bad

Asturian Cetorix I think that may have been at high speed driving

I mean, its a chevy, so id expect that

Pues anda,que la furgoneta...Queda totalmente doblada,por la mitad.

Your the idiot who thinks 90's and 80's automobiles are land yachts. Why should we adhere what you say as some kind of a known fact when almost everything that you said was a "this is what I think" response.

@@WitchKing-Of-Angmar I didn't say that all cars in the 80's and 90's were land yachts, I only implied that some cars from the 80's and 90's were land yachts. Look, I am old enough to have lived through all of the 80's, and I was old enough to drive through most of the 90's. So I am very aware of the cars that were on the road then. My first car was an 82 Ford Escort. Was that a land yacht? No! My friend's first car was an 87 Mercury Grand Marquis. Was that a land yacht? Well since it was the second biggest car made in the 80's, I would say yes. Would its 3,737 lbs curb weight make it a land yacht now? I don't know, who cares? It was a land yacht based on the standards of the time. The fact is that I could post some URL's to some statistics from IIHS or refer to my degree in engineering to point out that my response was a little more researched than just "that is what I think", but instead I will just point out that you didn't even read my post carefully enough to understand what I was saying about 80's and 90's cars so you pretty much destroyed your entire argument with your first sentence.

Not really a lot of vehicles are tested the same way @ the same speed with a lot less damage

+Niklas Wejedal in Vans your feet are cut off and many like this Astro almost overturned sideways,,,Once seen a small car crash with a chevy Van that put the Van on it's side

not the back

Half the car is gone. Jeez.

How do you figure? Unless you're talking about the German Rube Goldberg machines... on most modern cars you don't have to do anything except tires, brake pads, fluid, and filter changes for the first 100,000 miles/160,000 km. On an old car... you'd have to adjust the timing, adjust the carb, give it a tune up, adjust the valve lash, rebuild the carb, etc etc.. and by 100,000 miles it was ready for the scrap heap.

Bartonovich52 wait till you get trouble on new cars, old cars are mostly straightforward, timing belt adjust piece of cake on most of the oldies , carbs a lil bit tricky. but new cars, try to even change spark plugs ore a defect light bulb on the headlight I dare you!

If you have trouble changing a headlight bulb or spark plug, you probably shouldn't be working on your own car...

MercilessHobo mister einstein has spoken!

Alessio S Good to know that having the basic common sense to know how to pull a lightbulb out and turn a rachet makes me a genius...

It's a B2 (1982-1988)'so is even older by a bit.

marygott66 Whatever year it was, that thing was apparently a death trap when it was first made because we had little to no saftey guidelines.

@@AxlBrickman The VW Bettle used same Structure as 1938 , you know, BEFORE WW2

@@WarCrimeGaming Wow, so 1939 was before WW2? Idiot!

@@Menck1 Wow, so you call me idiot because I tipped it wrong. That's not nice either

@@Menck1 Oh, and also, WW2 started on 1. September 1939 so it still was true.

Yep, same Structure... And people are wondering why a car from WW2 is terrible at safety

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gqySgJqTta3bYas.html

+Tetraden a All test speeds are the same 40 Mph. All cars before 2000 care utter crap when it comes to safety, including VW.

+Protector of the Republic Some 1990s Volvos performed well for their time. There's some crash test footage of them on youtube.

I think there was also a 1988 model.

Azaan Habib Of course, that's why I wrote " the "1997" Passat is only second successor of the "1985" Passat"

Sorry, I didn't read your comment properly.

:)

Have you guys forgotten the B4?! The B5.0 was made between 1997-2000, the B3 was 1988-1991 (not exactly, but roughly). B2 was 1981-1988, and B4 was 1994-1997.

You make me sick with that opinnion. Old cars up to early 90s are one of the strongest and most reliable cars out there. Not maybe the safest when crashing but otherways yeah. I would never drive 2000s --> car.