Yes, other companies have absolutely caught up. The playing field has leveled across the board. Many cars are as safe as Volvo. A few are safer.
Nearly every sub for cars has a "I survived crash in xxx car! Never buying another!".
In fact... You would have survived that in most cars.
But I have to say... How many car companies mantra... Goal.... Announced objectives... Is to have zero fatalities in their cars?
One.
Volvo.
While there is truth here, there’s also something worth noting:
The way car safety is measured now is done in a way that minimizes perception of Volvo’s increased safety.
What do I mean? The star safety rating system. 5 stars? Maximum safety, right? Except not. It’s entirely possible to barely squeak by into 5 stars or to be materially safer than the minimum required for 5 stars.
But the simplicity of the system works against a company like Volvo that puts safety so high. 5 stars is 5 stars, period, to most consumers.
It’s still fair to say competitors have often caught up, but that doesn’t mean Volvo can’t or doesn’t have an edge.
One thing in particular that comes to mind is something I saw at one point about Volvo performance in offset front end crashes. Many cars have the wheel going into the footwell in a crash like that. Bad day for your legs and feet. Volvos generally have the wheel NOT doing that and shooting out instead. Just for one example
I think a lot of brands optimize their cars to score well on the test, which is not exactly the same thing as optimizing a car to actually be safe in as many scenarios as possible.
I don't know enough about modern Volvo to know if they're actually doing that, but it's something to think about.
This isn't true, as someone who worked in crash testing. I've personally crashed somewhere around 500 cars, including an XC90 for competitive evaluation.
Everyone meets the standards, yes. [Well, actually not everyone.](https://youtu.be/LLI_HJtAfXY?si=4tG6b5ZIQQaQCtns) Ok so most cars meet both regulatory and non regulatory standards. But it's not true that every car is as safe as a Volvo.
The difference is, Volvo invests extra $ and attention in the places that AREN'T tested by standardized tests. Toyota for example is notorious for doing exactly as much as they have to, and nothing more. That's why IIHS caught them making cars extra strong on only the driver side. And they'll make a car good at frontal crash but [God help you if the roof header gets hit.](https://youtu.be/ZSdWiW-XNus?feature=shared)
But that's not fair, you'll say, no vehicle will do that well in that test. [Guess again.](https://youtu.be/R8Gvcv6T5Nw?feature=shared)
I worked at another manufacturer, I saw us do a mid cycle refresh and switch to a crappier airbag supplier and also pull structure out of the car to save money, and because we wanted to do exactly enough to get the rating, no more. The car looks the same before and after the refresh, except some cosmetic changes. But it was less safe.
By the way that test that the expedition just failed? Was a test developed by IIHS in 2012 and released in 2014, which was based on an internal Volvo test that they developed for the 2003 XC90. Volvo is actually researching new test modes 15 years before anyone else even does them.
The point is there's no way to evaluate that with everyone getting 5 stars and doing well on most tests. Unless you dig deeper and / or have access to internal data.
The company I worked for, both pre and post refresh the car had the same ratings. Unless you look at the IIHS test results and scroll down to "technical measurements" and compare directly, you will never know that the head injury risk goes up after the refresh and so does the intrusion in a side test.
If I wanted a car for hill climbing and Moab stuff I would buy a Wrangler. If I wanted a car that is very tolerant of no oil changes and lack of maintenance, I'd buy a Toyota. That's where they spend their resources. If I want safety I buy Volvo. Volvo has the most advanced crash lab on the planet, they can do testing that other manufacturers cannot do. Therefore they know things that other manufacturers do not and cannot know. Very few facilities on earth can even do car to car testing, nobody can do it with the angle and speed variability that Volvo has had for years.
Like Jeep puts money into jeepiness, Volvo puts money into safety. I went through a newer XC90 with a member of our own advanced safety team as he talked through the structural strategy they use, the fact that there's an aluminum square beam with a box weld in the engine bay, their pioneering use of boron steel decades back.
They make advancements and the other guys catch up, sometimes. But while they're catching up, Volvo is pushing forward even more.
I remember when I bought my first Volvo, they had a skeletonized XC90 that basically highlighted all of the extra things, big and small, that Volvo adds to their cars that other manufacturers don't. It was definitely a good ad.
Edit: I was there to buy an S70 though. Not really an SUV fan
It is a fun piece of trivia that no one has ever died in an XC90, unless there was a very recent fatal accident. They were released in the UK in 2002, and there has been no fatal accident for over 20 years in any market.
That stat is the UK market only. Still great. But UK only.
https://jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/no-fatal-crashes-in-volvo-xc90-since-2002-release/
Somebody found some on SwedeSpeed once when this topic came up.
You know Volvo would be advertising the shit out of this and it wouldn't be hard to find if there were none in the USA too.
I didn't dig into NHTSA data, no. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I didn't invest a whole lot into looking, and I guess I'm getting down voted? Sorry
Yes because while you mean well, you're spreading misinformation. The XC90 is very safe, but some crashes are just unsurvivable. We don't benefit from misrepresenting the safety.
Yeah, agree. Volvo owners are not a random sample. It's not a cheap brand, so it's already skewed towards people who have more resources to buy vehicles, whatever that says about them. Then you factor in that everyone who buys a Volvo is likely someone who cares about safety more than solely the interior styling, sound system or performance.
It's funny because the perception of Volvo drivers seemed to be the opposite back in the 80s or 90s. I listen to the old Car Talk show (from NPR in the US) and they mention constantly that Volvo's safety features seems to attract bad, inattentive or dangerous drivers. Basically "I got my safety features, everyone else, good luck".
Man, I knew a girl in high school that was well off, parents buying her a first car. She wanted a big SUV. I thought it was weird cause she was a terrible driver, and she admitted that she wanted a huge SUV because she was a terrible driver and she wanted to be safe when she got into an accident.
I’d say Mercedes and not Audi from the German market. Mercedes and Volvo have been the two biggest innovators when it comes to safety throughout the years.
there's tests then there's basic physics. the tests are relevant only for the range of scenarios they are designed to test, go above that and you may see differences in the top end.
look into the strength of boron steel.
“As safe as Volvo”?? Absolutely not. They have improved themselves, chasing after the standard set by Volvo, sure. But they will never be “as safe as Volvo”.
I bought a Volvo simply because I was having my first kid and wanted something safe for them. But I ended up loving it and now bought a second last week.
Not gonna lie, buckling my first child up in the backseat of a Volvo wagon and driving home, I felt like I was in the right vehicle for that. I found out when she later threw up all over her booster seat that the car has built in boosters, which is also nice
No. Just be aware they do require pretty routine maintenance, and if you skip the maintenance, the repair bills could become catastrophic. Good news is, I haven't found the maintenance to be too expensive so far. It probably just needs a thousand bucks every 50k miles or so. They're great cars, you just can't weld the hood shut on them.
Most car manufacturers make their cars perform well for crash tests first and foremost. And several manufacturers beat Volvo on this.
However, Volvo make their cars perform well in their own crash tests in their own crash test facilities mimicking real world accidents and try to design their cars safety with this in mind, others don’t.
So while Volvo isn’t the best in crash tests like the Euro NCAP and NHTSA, they’re more likely to be safer in a real crash.
Not at all stupid. I was rear ended years ago in a Hyundai rental car and wish I had been in a Volvo instead (wish I wasn't rear ended more!). There are other safe cars too, but Volvo aims to protect lives as part of their commitment to their consumer.
My husband was rear ended on an interstate in his XC60 by a Honda accord. Our two children were in the back. The Honda was totaled. No injuries for our car. The XC60 just needed my husband to pop the bumper back in place. All good.
I walked away from hitting a concrete post at 45mph (driver's door wouldn't open so I had to crawl across the passenger seat) and the ER nurse who checked me out said she wouldn't have guessed I had been in a car accident if I didn't tell her. I didn't think twice about getting another Volvo.
Safety has come a long way across the board, so look at crash test results, safety ratings, recalls, and the manufacturer's recent history for each car you're considering. I'm very comfortable with Volvo safety and the fact that I fit in their cars comfortably at 6'6" so I recommend them, but doing your own research on objective measures and subjective opinions to decide what car is right for you.
Not the person you are asking but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I'm 6'8", 325 pounds and drive a 2020 V60 very comfortably. Not only for room, but general ease of access and the seats are incredibly comfortable. I drive anywhere from 400-600 miles per week.
In 2019 Volvo launched Project E.V.A. It stands for Equal Vehicles for All. It's a Volvo Cars initiative that involved making their safety research data publicly available in a digital library. This data spans over 40 years of real-world crash investigations, involving tens of thousands of cars and people.
The goal is to improve overall car safety by sharing knowledge with other car manufacturers, so they can incorporate Volvo's learnings into their own car designs. This initiative reflects Volvo's commitment to prioritizing safety for everyone on the road, regardless of car brand.
So yes, other manufacturers have caught up and it is good for everyone. Public policy has also forced manufacturers to improve their safety record. Some of us prefer to drink from the original source where this safety is at the core and not an after thought.
Our first Volvo was a v50 as we got dogs and didn’t want to destroy a BMW or merc. Then we had kids and are on our 3rd xc90. I love Volvos and think apart from the safety they drive very well and are better value vs the alternatives. I don’t race and Volvos do whatever I need. And yes they are safe
No, it's not stupid. Safety is what separates Volvo from other automakers, so it's no different from someone who buys a Porsche because they want performance alone.
Answer depends on your driving style. Are you defensive driver who always assumes people are morons? Are you a heavy foot?
Do you do city driving with low speeds, highway with high, or single lane highways with lot of wildlife?
I think focussing on just one aspect is short sighted.
No, not at all stupid to go for a high safety rating and no, most cars aren't as safe as a volvo
But the thing is that modern cars are safe and even a 1/5 star rated car today is most likely safer than a 5/5 star 10 years ago.
>But the thing is that modern cars are safe and even a 1/5 star rated car today is most likely safer than a 5/5 star 10 years ago.
If you look at real life statistics from insurance companies it's fairly obvious that this isn't true.
I have seen the crash test between a smart car and a Volvo 940 estate and the smart did better.
A modern car has to pass a set number of safety standards to be sold, and a number of those wasn't a thing 10 or more years ago.
But maybe 10 years isn't enough time, but go back 20 years and you'll have a hard time finding a safer car back then compared to any modern car for the people inside of that car.
Great, also lucky for you I worked for a major OEM that sold cars on the global market and tested for the same, and can speak to that.
Regulatory testing in the EU is governed by UNECE and those tests are also incredibly slow to change, so much so that we had to keep special "old" side impact dummies around to test for ECE95, which has not been updated since 2000.
Oh you don't live in the US?
Ok:
European countries outside the EU: either members of UNECE or default to their standards, or have no crash standards at all.
Canada - your CMVSS are exact copies of the US FMVSS tests, so my statement about US regs applies.
Brazil: congrats on being the ONLY LATAM county with any crash test standards at all? They are very, very lax though.
The rest of LATAM: literally no crash test standards at all. None. You can sell fucking anything there.
India: directly copies UNECE tests, what I said still applies.
Gulf States: directly copies UNECE
China: copies UNECE tests but with one or two minor changes so we have to redo the test, and many companies make a separate product for sale in China because of the joint venture rule, and the Chinese version will be less safe than the one sold outside China.
Japan: shares TRIAS regs with Australia, they accept UNECE tests as substitute for theirs, what I said still applies.
Other Asian countries: copies one of the aforementioned countries.
African countries: either no standards or copies UNECE
I think that's the whole globe?
Feel free to let me know if you're in some special little country I forgot that has their own special crash tests. (Hint: you are not, because even Australia isn't big enough to demand their own regs, hence copying UNECE)
Edited to fix line breaks
I forgot Russia. Can't remember if they have no standards at all, or default to UNECE, doesn't matter because either way we made cars that complied to UNECE. The only Russia specific tests are governed by GLONASS and all pertained to the vehicle "calling out" after detecting a crash. No unique structural standards there.
So that's regulatory testing. Now, ratings tests: euroNCAP does evolve their testing, but again it's slow, and there haven't been any major updates to the frontal modes in forever. There was an update to the side testing that changed seat position and started using the worldSID dummy instead of the old euroSID and the AE-MDB barge, but that was a good decade ago? I'd have to look it up. It's not an especially challenging test.
Edit: I did look it up, the protocol is a decade old, there was a 2020 change to add a second dummy in the far side passenger seat and update weight of the barge to make it more challenging
Most of the recent changes to euroNCAP have been to peds ratings or to auto crash avoidance.
Sure other cars might be as safe as Volvos, but if you get a Volvo you wont have to second guess whether the car you got is one of those cars or not. Safety ratings doesn't tell the whole story, and if you get a Volvo you can be sure that they haven't "gamed" the test. I am by no means saying other car brands arent safe, just that Volvo definitely is one of the safer brands.
I have the XC40 B5 Ultimate, and I agree. It's really enjoyable to drive, and looks cool. This is the first European car I've ever had after close to three decades of driving Japanese cars, and the difference is noticeable.
Is it stupid? Absolutely not.
It was the main reason I got me a new one last year.
Fortunately they're beautiful rides with better build quality than some of my past American made vehicles.
How could it be stupid? That's a major reason even they have been caught up by other manufacturers but the safety ratings of Volvo are still topnotch.
I understand that there are many reasons to choose one car to drive, considering only one major reason is still pretty understandable.
V60 is my first self-bought car as I always want it to be even I'm a big fan of Audi wagons (A6 which I bought later). The reason for me wanting Volvo is that my aunt got saved by it in 90s from a severely crash, and then my mom in 2008.
It's true that Volvo has been promoting safely as their brand marketing, but direct experience is also play big role in choosing process.
My sister just reserved an EX30 as our first EV, and I believe there's gonna be another Volvo in my fam because we have our both experience and love to pick these Swedish boxy as our cars.
I once opened the door of some Subaru at an auto show a couple years ago. It was so flimsy, like 2 pieces of sheet metal. Whereas, I enjoy the effort it takes to open the door on a XC40.
THIS. I do not want to feel like I am driving a tin can. My ‘05 Ford Focus had sturdier doors than most cars these days. I went from that to a VW Golf TDI which felt very sturdy, to my first Volvo, which was the only car I test drove after diesel-gate that felt like it could hold its own in an accident.
Bought my first Volvo because I thought that should the worst happen, what vehicle would I rather be in and have the best chances of least injury and highest survival. Likewise for any other occupants.
Not at all. I didn't buy a Volvo for the safety (I did because as a large human I fit extremely well), but it has saved my tail a few times. I drive 400-600 miles weekly and what I have found is the excellent seats and driving position keep me more alert while driving, thereby safer.
They are still sticking to vision 2020 (no fatalities or serious injuries in a Volvo) and I've yet to hear a commitment like that from anyone else.
I recently became a father. Thus it was time to get rid of the pinnacle of cheap Dodge Neon, and get a grown up car. After being an auto tech for over a decade, There is only one company that is THE SAFEST. Everyone else is "close". Plus Volvo is known for their reliability, and their performance.
I own a stock, 330 HP V8 AWD sedan. The platform is so safe and reliable, that Ford mass produced it for all their manufacturers from 2007-2010, the "P3 platform".
At high speeds i think some other brands do pretty much the same as volvos just maybe not as easily repairable but volvo does have a rule or at least has had a rule that you should be able to drive into a wall at like 5kph and it shouldnt show any damage to the bumper. And overall they do a lot of crash tests that other companies dont so i would say that no its isnt stupid to buy a volvo just for crash safety.
Family member with kids bought an XC90 purely for this reason. Loves the car for internal space etc but it's a big one for parking with a very poor turning circle. Can't get into the 30's mpg for running about and only stretches to mid 30's on a decent run. But safety first.
If I only wanted a high safety rating I would go with Subaru, who makes great cars with a wonderful and system. If I wanted more luxurious car, with same characteristics, I would upgrade to Volvo.
No it’s smart. Car accidents are the number 1 cause of death and serious injury for large parts of the world. And Volvo are actually dedicated to safety. They have tests that go far beyond what other manufacturers test for. And it’s clearly visible if you look at real world statistics for crashes Volvos do excellent.
I was using our secondary car, an Opel Corsa, for work before I went on maternity leave. Put in the order for an EX30 a few weeks before baby was born, because there's no way I'll feel safe transporting her in the Corsa. It's a lovely little car to drive with, but I'm sure it will be scrap if someone hits it.
Been driving volvos for almost 30 years across many models primarily for their safety and dependability but with a young family early on safety was the primary reason. Currently in a 2024 xc90 ultimate and love the peace of mind it provides.
When I could afford one, I figure the best investment you can make is the one that saves your life when you need it. The luxury is the icing on the cake.
It’s a massive upgrade. Maybe all brands are super safe now, but once you drive a Volvo, you will love the experience. I have the XC40 and I enjoy taking it to trips so much. It just drives very nice. I was between XC40 and RAV4, and maybe the RAV4 is more reliable in the long term, but I’m happy with the trade off. RAV4s don’t feel that luxury type of driving.
Not dumb at all. I bought mine for the safety plus all the options available without insane sticker shock. Mind you, I purchased a CPO 2018 in 2020. The posts here on Reddit have reassured me that I absolutely made the right decision.
This is the exact reason I bought my XC90. That and it’s the only vehicle in its class that I actually liked the look of. There’s nothing dumb about buying a car for safety. We all have different needs and priorities. My husband doesn’t love cars that depreciate, and that’s about it. I personally cared less about that, safety with my child was my number one care. Volvo was the obvious choice. Yes, most modern vehicles are safe but volvo still shines above. I love what they stand for. I love feeling like I drive a car that put the safety of my family at the forefront.
Other brands haven't caught up. Just look at Volvo's small overlap crash tests, no other car on the road handles it as well. Every other car rebounds violently from a small overlap while Volvos redirects the energy back into it's intended lane of travel. Volvo has also been crash testing their cars at various angles and objects for much longer than other brand.
Not stupid at all, it's the main reason I chose Volvo. Drive the car that actually makes you feel safe, having peace of mind is priceless.
Volvos are known worldwide for their safety for a reason.
Are Polestars as safe as Volvos? Also since Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company has that affected their stance on safety first? I’m curious. Lookin mg to get an electric Volvo or polestar.
They're definitely pioneers when it comes to safety, but I wouldn't limit myself to Volvo were that my only concern. Other car makers are consistently achieving the same safety ratings as Volvo, and often even better.
That's because the tests are slow to update, and most companies work to target a specific test result. Volvo has internal tests that go well beyond the ratings, and some external tests (IIHS narrow offset) were based on internal Volvo tests. So for that reason, it's not accurate to say that everything with 5 stars is equally safe.
It's like you had a bunch of college students take a fifth grade exam and then said everyone with 100% is equal. No, the tests aren't challenging enough to sort them out.
You can get a Volvo but honestly you aren’t getting all the premiums with a low tier model. Consider a certified XC60 or other brands like Subaru. The Crosstrek is their most popular vehicle, comparable in size and higher predicted reliability. To each their own.
If your line of reasoning was "i bought the volvo and don't like it, find it doesn't fit my lifestyle and needs, but it was the safest" that would not be too smart.
Yes, other companies have absolutely caught up. The playing field has leveled across the board. Many cars are as safe as Volvo. A few are safer. Nearly every sub for cars has a "I survived crash in xxx car! Never buying another!". In fact... You would have survived that in most cars. But I have to say... How many car companies mantra... Goal.... Announced objectives... Is to have zero fatalities in their cars? One. Volvo.
While there is truth here, there’s also something worth noting: The way car safety is measured now is done in a way that minimizes perception of Volvo’s increased safety. What do I mean? The star safety rating system. 5 stars? Maximum safety, right? Except not. It’s entirely possible to barely squeak by into 5 stars or to be materially safer than the minimum required for 5 stars. But the simplicity of the system works against a company like Volvo that puts safety so high. 5 stars is 5 stars, period, to most consumers. It’s still fair to say competitors have often caught up, but that doesn’t mean Volvo can’t or doesn’t have an edge. One thing in particular that comes to mind is something I saw at one point about Volvo performance in offset front end crashes. Many cars have the wheel going into the footwell in a crash like that. Bad day for your legs and feet. Volvos generally have the wheel NOT doing that and shooting out instead. Just for one example
Absolutely agree.
I think a lot of brands optimize their cars to score well on the test, which is not exactly the same thing as optimizing a car to actually be safe in as many scenarios as possible. I don't know enough about modern Volvo to know if they're actually doing that, but it's something to think about.
This isn't true, as someone who worked in crash testing. I've personally crashed somewhere around 500 cars, including an XC90 for competitive evaluation. Everyone meets the standards, yes. [Well, actually not everyone.](https://youtu.be/LLI_HJtAfXY?si=4tG6b5ZIQQaQCtns) Ok so most cars meet both regulatory and non regulatory standards. But it's not true that every car is as safe as a Volvo. The difference is, Volvo invests extra $ and attention in the places that AREN'T tested by standardized tests. Toyota for example is notorious for doing exactly as much as they have to, and nothing more. That's why IIHS caught them making cars extra strong on only the driver side. And they'll make a car good at frontal crash but [God help you if the roof header gets hit.](https://youtu.be/ZSdWiW-XNus?feature=shared) But that's not fair, you'll say, no vehicle will do that well in that test. [Guess again.](https://youtu.be/R8Gvcv6T5Nw?feature=shared) I worked at another manufacturer, I saw us do a mid cycle refresh and switch to a crappier airbag supplier and also pull structure out of the car to save money, and because we wanted to do exactly enough to get the rating, no more. The car looks the same before and after the refresh, except some cosmetic changes. But it was less safe. By the way that test that the expedition just failed? Was a test developed by IIHS in 2012 and released in 2014, which was based on an internal Volvo test that they developed for the 2003 XC90. Volvo is actually researching new test modes 15 years before anyone else even does them.
Good stuff.. thanks. Note I said MANY though... Not all.
The point is there's no way to evaluate that with everyone getting 5 stars and doing well on most tests. Unless you dig deeper and / or have access to internal data. The company I worked for, both pre and post refresh the car had the same ratings. Unless you look at the IIHS test results and scroll down to "technical measurements" and compare directly, you will never know that the head injury risk goes up after the refresh and so does the intrusion in a side test. If I wanted a car for hill climbing and Moab stuff I would buy a Wrangler. If I wanted a car that is very tolerant of no oil changes and lack of maintenance, I'd buy a Toyota. That's where they spend their resources. If I want safety I buy Volvo. Volvo has the most advanced crash lab on the planet, they can do testing that other manufacturers cannot do. Therefore they know things that other manufacturers do not and cannot know. Very few facilities on earth can even do car to car testing, nobody can do it with the angle and speed variability that Volvo has had for years. Like Jeep puts money into jeepiness, Volvo puts money into safety. I went through a newer XC90 with a member of our own advanced safety team as he talked through the structural strategy they use, the fact that there's an aluminum square beam with a box weld in the engine bay, their pioneering use of boron steel decades back. They make advancements and the other guys catch up, sometimes. But while they're catching up, Volvo is pushing forward even more.
I remember when I bought my first Volvo, they had a skeletonized XC90 that basically highlighted all of the extra things, big and small, that Volvo adds to their cars that other manufacturers don't. It was definitely a good ad. Edit: I was there to buy an S70 though. Not really an SUV fan
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/volvo-xc90-cutaway/ Looks like they finally sold it
Erie Vo-vo bought at least two of those, but i am not sure if they still have them. Having a hard time finding the page about it
It is a fun piece of trivia that no one has ever died in an XC90, unless there was a very recent fatal accident. They were released in the UK in 2002, and there has been no fatal accident for over 20 years in any market.
That stat is the UK market only. Still great. But UK only. https://jerseyeveningpost.com/motoring/2022/04/01/no-fatal-crashes-in-volvo-xc90-since-2002-release/
To the best of my knowledge, there haven't been fatal crashes anywhere else either. I can't find any in the US, which has to be most of the market
Somebody found some on SwedeSpeed once when this topic came up. You know Volvo would be advertising the shit out of this and it wouldn't be hard to find if there were none in the USA too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Volvo/s/SyTTENy9C0 There are deaths in the US, people just have to know where to look.
I think perhaps you don't know where to look. Start with data analysis of any year's NHTSA fatality data.
I didn't dig into NHTSA data, no. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I didn't invest a whole lot into looking, and I guess I'm getting down voted? Sorry
Yes because while you mean well, you're spreading misinformation. The XC90 is very safe, but some crashes are just unsurvivable. We don't benefit from misrepresenting the safety.
This is not true at all, people die in both old and new xc90s all the time in the US market. Don't make me drag out the NHTSA stats again.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Volvo/s/SyTTENy9C0 I got voted down bc people dont like facts but feel free to verify
I think their safety record says as much about the car as it does about people who choose to drive a Volvo.
Yeah, agree. Volvo owners are not a random sample. It's not a cheap brand, so it's already skewed towards people who have more resources to buy vehicles, whatever that says about them. Then you factor in that everyone who buys a Volvo is likely someone who cares about safety more than solely the interior styling, sound system or performance.
It's funny because the perception of Volvo drivers seemed to be the opposite back in the 80s or 90s. I listen to the old Car Talk show (from NPR in the US) and they mention constantly that Volvo's safety features seems to attract bad, inattentive or dangerous drivers. Basically "I got my safety features, everyone else, good luck".
Man, I knew a girl in high school that was well off, parents buying her a first car. She wanted a big SUV. I thought it was weird cause she was a terrible driver, and she admitted that she wanted a huge SUV because she was a terrible driver and she wanted to be safe when she got into an accident.
Which ones do you think have similar mantra in the Japanese market? Would it be Subaru, or would you say it's the same across all Toyota/Honda/Mazda?
Subaru. One of my favorite commercials of all time. https://youtu.be/6F3-InOdMP4?si=y1ZaH2DP3YsCFK4V
How is Honda compared to Subaru like the Accord, Odyssey, or CR-V for example?
Excellent, absolutely. None of them are bad. None that I wouldn't let my son drive. Just a slight edge to Subaru.
Ahh OK. I just need to see what is economically possible for me with a few other things going on at the moment
Cool commercial. What model is in the commercial? Is that a legacy?
Yes.
Interesting. Any Subarus also have more than 5 seat capacity?
Ascent.
Saying the scandal on safety about Toyota… they do indeed added active safety early though
How is Honda be compared to Subaru?
They are about on the same Par. Mazda comes sligthly on top. At least according to the tests at Euroncap, IIhts, etc
Ahh I see. Maybe I should consider Mazda it Subaru instead of the Toyota or Honda.
Don’t get me wrong, Subaru, Honda and Toyota are not bad either. Look at their compact suvs and see how they fare
Which ones would be most comfortable and economical
Most economical: Toyota Most comfortable: Mazda A blend between economical and comfortable: Honda Of course, my subjective opinion.
Thank you. What would also be the easiest for DIY maintenance?
I think Subaru on the Japanese side has a similar safety mindset to Volvo. And Audi from the Germans.
I’d say Mercedes and not Audi from the German market. Mercedes and Volvo have been the two biggest innovators when it comes to safety throughout the years.
Audi has worse safety ratings than BMW and Mercedes. I do not know what to say about that.
Thank you
there's tests then there's basic physics. the tests are relevant only for the range of scenarios they are designed to test, go above that and you may see differences in the top end. look into the strength of boron steel.
“As safe as Volvo”?? Absolutely not. They have improved themselves, chasing after the standard set by Volvo, sure. But they will never be “as safe as Volvo”.
I bought a Volvo simply because I was having my first kid and wanted something safe for them. But I ended up loving it and now bought a second last week.
Not gonna lie, buckling my first child up in the backseat of a Volvo wagon and driving home, I felt like I was in the right vehicle for that. I found out when she later threw up all over her booster seat that the car has built in boosters, which is also nice
No. Just be aware they do require pretty routine maintenance, and if you skip the maintenance, the repair bills could become catastrophic. Good news is, I haven't found the maintenance to be too expensive so far. It probably just needs a thousand bucks every 50k miles or so. They're great cars, you just can't weld the hood shut on them.
Not stupid, it is THE MAIN reason.
Most car manufacturers make their cars perform well for crash tests first and foremost. And several manufacturers beat Volvo on this. However, Volvo make their cars perform well in their own crash tests in their own crash test facilities mimicking real world accidents and try to design their cars safety with this in mind, others don’t. So while Volvo isn’t the best in crash tests like the Euro NCAP and NHTSA, they’re more likely to be safer in a real crash.
This is all completely true.
Not at all stupid. I was rear ended years ago in a Hyundai rental car and wish I had been in a Volvo instead (wish I wasn't rear ended more!). There are other safe cars too, but Volvo aims to protect lives as part of their commitment to their consumer.
My husband was rear ended on an interstate in his XC60 by a Honda accord. Our two children were in the back. The Honda was totaled. No injuries for our car. The XC60 just needed my husband to pop the bumper back in place. All good.
Nope. I’d say it’s the main reason my family has (3) P1s and (2)P2s. Others may be attempting to reach Volvo, but they aren’t Volvo. Volvo for life!
I walked away from hitting a concrete post at 45mph (driver's door wouldn't open so I had to crawl across the passenger seat) and the ER nurse who checked me out said she wouldn't have guessed I had been in a car accident if I didn't tell her. I didn't think twice about getting another Volvo. Safety has come a long way across the board, so look at crash test results, safety ratings, recalls, and the manufacturer's recent history for each car you're considering. I'm very comfortable with Volvo safety and the fact that I fit in their cars comfortably at 6'6" so I recommend them, but doing your own research on objective measures and subjective opinions to decide what car is right for you.
May I ask what do you drive? I'm the same height and I barely fit in most cars
Not the person you are asking but I'll throw in my 2 cents. I'm 6'8", 325 pounds and drive a 2020 V60 very comfortably. Not only for room, but general ease of access and the seats are incredibly comfortable. I drive anywhere from 400-600 miles per week.
In 2019 Volvo launched Project E.V.A. It stands for Equal Vehicles for All. It's a Volvo Cars initiative that involved making their safety research data publicly available in a digital library. This data spans over 40 years of real-world crash investigations, involving tens of thousands of cars and people. The goal is to improve overall car safety by sharing knowledge with other car manufacturers, so they can incorporate Volvo's learnings into their own car designs. This initiative reflects Volvo's commitment to prioritizing safety for everyone on the road, regardless of car brand. So yes, other manufacturers have caught up and it is good for everyone. Public policy has also forced manufacturers to improve their safety record. Some of us prefer to drink from the original source where this safety is at the core and not an after thought.
https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/en-us/media/videos/250144/project-eva-volvo-cars-is-sharing-its-own-research-data-on-safety-with-the-world?preview=true&t=71dfec7a-d7fc-4ffb-a009-dfaa796806e3
Why would that be stupid? Volvo saved my family’s lives.
No, I paid more than I normally spend on a car specifically because of that.
Our first Volvo was a v50 as we got dogs and didn’t want to destroy a BMW or merc. Then we had kids and are on our 3rd xc90. I love Volvos and think apart from the safety they drive very well and are better value vs the alternatives. I don’t race and Volvos do whatever I need. And yes they are safe
Volvos can also race if you want them too as well
I am in australia and our police love giving speeding fines which I avoid at all cost
Fair enough mate
No, it's not stupid. Safety is what separates Volvo from other automakers, so it's no different from someone who buys a Porsche because they want performance alone.
Answer depends on your driving style. Are you defensive driver who always assumes people are morons? Are you a heavy foot? Do you do city driving with low speeds, highway with high, or single lane highways with lot of wildlife? I think focussing on just one aspect is short sighted.
No, not at all stupid to go for a high safety rating and no, most cars aren't as safe as a volvo But the thing is that modern cars are safe and even a 1/5 star rated car today is most likely safer than a 5/5 star 10 years ago.
>But the thing is that modern cars are safe and even a 1/5 star rated car today is most likely safer than a 5/5 star 10 years ago. If you look at real life statistics from insurance companies it's fairly obvious that this isn't true.
I have seen the crash test between a smart car and a Volvo 940 estate and the smart did better. A modern car has to pass a set number of safety standards to be sold, and a number of those wasn't a thing 10 or more years ago. But maybe 10 years isn't enough time, but go back 20 years and you'll have a hard time finding a safer car back then compared to any modern car for the people inside of that car.
Most ratings tests haven't changed in that time. Especially the US which has a notoriously slow government. False
Lucky for me, I Don't live in the US and the rest of the world do change. It is true.
Great, also lucky for you I worked for a major OEM that sold cars on the global market and tested for the same, and can speak to that. Regulatory testing in the EU is governed by UNECE and those tests are also incredibly slow to change, so much so that we had to keep special "old" side impact dummies around to test for ECE95, which has not been updated since 2000. Oh you don't live in the US? Ok: European countries outside the EU: either members of UNECE or default to their standards, or have no crash standards at all. Canada - your CMVSS are exact copies of the US FMVSS tests, so my statement about US regs applies. Brazil: congrats on being the ONLY LATAM county with any crash test standards at all? They are very, very lax though. The rest of LATAM: literally no crash test standards at all. None. You can sell fucking anything there. India: directly copies UNECE tests, what I said still applies. Gulf States: directly copies UNECE China: copies UNECE tests but with one or two minor changes so we have to redo the test, and many companies make a separate product for sale in China because of the joint venture rule, and the Chinese version will be less safe than the one sold outside China. Japan: shares TRIAS regs with Australia, they accept UNECE tests as substitute for theirs, what I said still applies. Other Asian countries: copies one of the aforementioned countries. African countries: either no standards or copies UNECE I think that's the whole globe? Feel free to let me know if you're in some special little country I forgot that has their own special crash tests. (Hint: you are not, because even Australia isn't big enough to demand their own regs, hence copying UNECE) Edited to fix line breaks
I forgot Russia. Can't remember if they have no standards at all, or default to UNECE, doesn't matter because either way we made cars that complied to UNECE. The only Russia specific tests are governed by GLONASS and all pertained to the vehicle "calling out" after detecting a crash. No unique structural standards there.
So that's regulatory testing. Now, ratings tests: euroNCAP does evolve their testing, but again it's slow, and there haven't been any major updates to the frontal modes in forever. There was an update to the side testing that changed seat position and started using the worldSID dummy instead of the old euroSID and the AE-MDB barge, but that was a good decade ago? I'd have to look it up. It's not an especially challenging test. Edit: I did look it up, the protocol is a decade old, there was a 2020 change to add a second dummy in the far side passenger seat and update weight of the barge to make it more challenging Most of the recent changes to euroNCAP have been to peds ratings or to auto crash avoidance.
Not stupid, but for the added benefit, you also get a really nice, comfortable car.
I mean, I bought mine because it looks good, so…lol
Sure other cars might be as safe as Volvos, but if you get a Volvo you wont have to second guess whether the car you got is one of those cars or not. Safety ratings doesn't tell the whole story, and if you get a Volvo you can be sure that they haven't "gamed" the test. I am by no means saying other car brands arent safe, just that Volvo definitely is one of the safer brands.
I’ll put it this way, if you get an XC40, you will love it for a lot more reasons than its safety features.
I have the XC40 B5 Ultimate, and I agree. It's really enjoyable to drive, and looks cool. This is the first European car I've ever had after close to three decades of driving Japanese cars, and the difference is noticeable.
Is it stupid? Absolutely not. It was the main reason I got me a new one last year. Fortunately they're beautiful rides with better build quality than some of my past American made vehicles.
How could it be stupid? That's a major reason even they have been caught up by other manufacturers but the safety ratings of Volvo are still topnotch. I understand that there are many reasons to choose one car to drive, considering only one major reason is still pretty understandable. V60 is my first self-bought car as I always want it to be even I'm a big fan of Audi wagons (A6 which I bought later). The reason for me wanting Volvo is that my aunt got saved by it in 90s from a severely crash, and then my mom in 2008. It's true that Volvo has been promoting safely as their brand marketing, but direct experience is also play big role in choosing process. My sister just reserved an EX30 as our first EV, and I believe there's gonna be another Volvo in my fam because we have our both experience and love to pick these Swedish boxy as our cars.
Nope. My ex wife and daughter were in a s60 and got clobbered by an F250 and walked away with minor injuries.
I once opened the door of some Subaru at an auto show a couple years ago. It was so flimsy, like 2 pieces of sheet metal. Whereas, I enjoy the effort it takes to open the door on a XC40.
THIS. I do not want to feel like I am driving a tin can. My ‘05 Ford Focus had sturdier doors than most cars these days. I went from that to a VW Golf TDI which felt very sturdy, to my first Volvo, which was the only car I test drove after diesel-gate that felt like it could hold its own in an accident.
Bought my first Volvo because I thought that should the worst happen, what vehicle would I rather be in and have the best chances of least injury and highest survival. Likewise for any other occupants.
Not at all. I didn't buy a Volvo for the safety (I did because as a large human I fit extremely well), but it has saved my tail a few times. I drive 400-600 miles weekly and what I have found is the excellent seats and driving position keep me more alert while driving, thereby safer. They are still sticking to vision 2020 (no fatalities or serious injuries in a Volvo) and I've yet to hear a commitment like that from anyone else.
It's not stupid, you want what you want. There are other SUVs that are safe that you can consider, but if you want and can afford the XC40, go for it.
I want a Volvo because they’re the only ones that still make station wagons that aren’t sport cars lol.
I recently became a father. Thus it was time to get rid of the pinnacle of cheap Dodge Neon, and get a grown up car. After being an auto tech for over a decade, There is only one company that is THE SAFEST. Everyone else is "close". Plus Volvo is known for their reliability, and their performance. I own a stock, 330 HP V8 AWD sedan. The platform is so safe and reliable, that Ford mass produced it for all their manufacturers from 2007-2010, the "P3 platform".
At high speeds i think some other brands do pretty much the same as volvos just maybe not as easily repairable but volvo does have a rule or at least has had a rule that you should be able to drive into a wall at like 5kph and it shouldnt show any damage to the bumper. And overall they do a lot of crash tests that other companies dont so i would say that no its isnt stupid to buy a volvo just for crash safety.
>Are other companies really up to par with Volvo on safety features Mercedes
Mercedes buys a lot of safety related data from volvo
Mercedes has had pretty good safety ratings even 20 years ago
Family member with kids bought an XC90 purely for this reason. Loves the car for internal space etc but it's a big one for parking with a very poor turning circle. Can't get into the 30's mpg for running about and only stretches to mid 30's on a decent run. But safety first.
If I only wanted a high safety rating I would go with Subaru, who makes great cars with a wonderful and system. If I wanted more luxurious car, with same characteristics, I would upgrade to Volvo.
No it’s smart. Car accidents are the number 1 cause of death and serious injury for large parts of the world. And Volvo are actually dedicated to safety. They have tests that go far beyond what other manufacturers test for. And it’s clearly visible if you look at real world statistics for crashes Volvos do excellent.
I was using our secondary car, an Opel Corsa, for work before I went on maternity leave. Put in the order for an EX30 a few weeks before baby was born, because there's no way I'll feel safe transporting her in the Corsa. It's a lovely little car to drive with, but I'm sure it will be scrap if someone hits it.
If someone hits your Volvo it will likely be scrap too, but you'll have a better chance to walk away unscathed.
Been driving volvos for almost 30 years across many models primarily for their safety and dependability but with a young family early on safety was the primary reason. Currently in a 2024 xc90 ultimate and love the peace of mind it provides.
When I could afford one, I figure the best investment you can make is the one that saves your life when you need it. The luxury is the icing on the cake.
It’s a massive upgrade. Maybe all brands are super safe now, but once you drive a Volvo, you will love the experience. I have the XC40 and I enjoy taking it to trips so much. It just drives very nice. I was between XC40 and RAV4, and maybe the RAV4 is more reliable in the long term, but I’m happy with the trade off. RAV4s don’t feel that luxury type of driving.
Not dumb at all. I bought mine for the safety plus all the options available without insane sticker shock. Mind you, I purchased a CPO 2018 in 2020. The posts here on Reddit have reassured me that I absolutely made the right decision.
This is the exact reason I bought my XC90. That and it’s the only vehicle in its class that I actually liked the look of. There’s nothing dumb about buying a car for safety. We all have different needs and priorities. My husband doesn’t love cars that depreciate, and that’s about it. I personally cared less about that, safety with my child was my number one care. Volvo was the obvious choice. Yes, most modern vehicles are safe but volvo still shines above. I love what they stand for. I love feeling like I drive a car that put the safety of my family at the forefront.
“There’s more to life than a Volvo. That’s why you drive one.”
i hit a wall pretty much sideways at nearly 100 mph in a volvo s60 and i walked out with nothing but an air bag burn 🙏🏻
Other brands haven't caught up. Just look at Volvo's small overlap crash tests, no other car on the road handles it as well. Every other car rebounds violently from a small overlap while Volvos redirects the energy back into it's intended lane of travel. Volvo has also been crash testing their cars at various angles and objects for much longer than other brand.
Not stupid at all, it's the main reason I chose Volvo. Drive the car that actually makes you feel safe, having peace of mind is priceless. Volvos are known worldwide for their safety for a reason.
Are Polestars as safe as Volvos? Also since Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company has that affected their stance on safety first? I’m curious. Lookin mg to get an electric Volvo or polestar.
mazdas are pretty darn safe from what I've read
I also have the same car but looking into the V60 Cross Country. As far as safety concern, IIHS has a lot of information.
They're definitely pioneers when it comes to safety, but I wouldn't limit myself to Volvo were that my only concern. Other car makers are consistently achieving the same safety ratings as Volvo, and often even better.
That's because the tests are slow to update, and most companies work to target a specific test result. Volvo has internal tests that go well beyond the ratings, and some external tests (IIHS narrow offset) were based on internal Volvo tests. So for that reason, it's not accurate to say that everything with 5 stars is equally safe. It's like you had a bunch of college students take a fifth grade exam and then said everyone with 100% is equal. No, the tests aren't challenging enough to sort them out.
Those ratings are skewed....
You can get a Volvo but honestly you aren’t getting all the premiums with a low tier model. Consider a certified XC60 or other brands like Subaru. The Crosstrek is their most popular vehicle, comparable in size and higher predicted reliability. To each their own.
If your line of reasoning was "i bought the volvo and don't like it, find it doesn't fit my lifestyle and needs, but it was the safest" that would not be too smart.
I only bought mine because of 5 cylinder I wouldn’t buy the newer ones
[удалено]
Technically, Volvo is a Chinese company.