If you are traveling, or simply moving, by your car, you are not in your home, in leisure or in fight. You are in defense.
A lot belong to this discussion.
Starting from the very unique: no active, (or innactive), fuel hoses in the area of the structure deformation in the case of a frontal or offset collision!
(This has to do with the position of the engine, (rear), and of the fuel tank, (rear-middle)).
No other car has to offer such a unique safety characteristic!
Is there a need to stress the importance of it?
NHTSA, NCAP, IIHS, and the other passive safety testing organisms are not referred to this point, because they are using catapults for their tests and not running engines!
And all the tests about fuel leakage are with the engine not running, like this, (VW's norm),
or like this, (NHTSA's norm):
The only other possibility, similar to this, is to be in an electric vehicle, but into water with 380v under your feet, it doesn't seem as the perfect solution!
(Stay tuned).
Soooo.....
Fuel tank of the Syncro t4:
Fuel tank of the 4motion t5(Haldex):
Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)
Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.
The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"
Can you , ever, imagine what is the above document?
Back to business and let me to introduce to you a very nice classic car, (80's), the above mentioned Volvo 740/745 (station vagon), which was selected for a crash test vs Vanagon (2wd).

Some, first, evidences where visible, though:
4-5 times bigger permanent deformation had two common cars vs t3, in two, 100% overlap, tests.
"Verhalten der VW-Transporter bei Frontalkollisionen mit Personenkraftwagen
1982, p. 117 (#6)Inhaltsverzeichnis
Zitat
Bürger, Ha. Verhalten der VW-Transporter bei Frontalkollisionen mit PersonenkraftwagenInhaltsangabe
Zwei Kollisionsversuche mit der Front eines VW Transporters T3 (ab Bj. 1979) gegen die Front eines stehenden Pkw (Überdeckung 100%). Die Versuche wurden mit 60,3 km/h und mit 73 km/h gefahren. Die Masse des Transporters lag mit 1655 kg im ersten Versuch über der des zweiten Versuchs (1560 kg). Im Versuch 1 wies der gecrashte Pkw eine Masse von 1240 kg auf, im Versuch 2 1535 kg. Auch ein VW Campingbus der Fa. Westfalia (größere Masse) wurde verwendet. Die bleibenden Verformungen der Pkws waren ca. 4-5 mal größer. Die Struktur des Vorderwagens des VW Transporters hinterhalb des Frontblechs ist auf (dem leider sehr dunkel geratenen) Bild 9 zu erkennen."Where a t3 destroys a K70, (crashes at 72 km/h), and, after that, it is ready for a new adventure:
Knallefekt(=Bombshell)
With encapsulated rollbars.
A rare photo for a Syncro crash test.

So back to the rival, lets try to know him a little bit better:
"
Real-World Crash Data Disputes NHTSA and IIHS Test Results
By Frank Williams on January 4, 2008
Pickup trucks may not be the deathtraps the NHTSA and IIHS tests make them out to be. Forbes reports research done by Virginia Commonwealth University that compared crash test ratings against data on fatal crashes. They found that while cars with higher crash test ratings show fewer fatalities than those with lower ratings, the same wasn't true for pickup trucks. In the NHTSA and IIHS tests, trucks are crashed into stationary barriers while in the real world, most crashes are vehicle-to-vehicle. In those cases, researchers postulate, the ladder frame in the pickups act as a "battering ram," allowing it to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter vehicle better than when striking a stationary barrier. Of course, the IIHS dismisses the idea, saying they have no evidence that ladder-frame construction has any effect on crashworthiness. After all, why let real-world facts get in the way of laboratory results?"
The Caravelle (Vanagon) climbed on top of the Volvo and cut into the cabin.
NOTE:
Chest impact: greater than 60 G results in death.
RESULTS:
Head Impact, Volvo: 200 G, VW: 42 G
Chest impact, Volvo: 65 G, VW: 30 G

Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)
Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.
The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"
"


The importance of the real life data can be shown here. Although Suzuki Sidekick/Tracker/Vitara has a relatively good grade, for driver, (better than Vanagon's), and front passenger, in reference to the above test, in real life IIHS's reports is one of the worst performers:
One more very important point, which is over the norms of the international organisms having the scope to check the vehicle's crasworthiness: in the above test, (and all the crash tests of the world), the engines of the tested vehicles are not working. Can you imagine a crash with a working engine at any of the Japan garbage?
(Of course, as already said, the rear engined t3, has no fuel lines nor any mechanical part near the crash).
For the Syncro, and due to its robust front double chassis, the results are even better, and, (with only a little more try), they can be much better!
The above t3's behavior is better than many nowadays cars with all their deceptive, (in many cases), safety systems.
But what about an U.S.A's similar, heavy and luxurious car of the era?
Let's have a look for comparison reasons, revealing a loud question: how t3, without any bonnet, using the knowledge available of the same period, can be so much better?
Looking better to the above, it seems, (it is not clear), that the safety belts used here are of the two points belts, not the three points which became mandatory after 1980.
So let's have a look to a similar, with 3 points belts.
Now, within other duties, it is time to introduce NHTSA's three crash tests and see why they are, e, hmmm..., inaccurate!
11/April/2017, Update.
A small parenthesis opens:
Those airbags...
C/NET:
"Airbag saves man, then kills him
" NHTSA reports that, as of July 2003, there were 231 confirmed deaths caused by airbag deployments in crashes that would otherwise not have been life threatening".
"The total number of driver and right-front passenger fatalities in cars and light trucks remained relatively unchanged from 1994 through 2002 even as the percent of drivers with airbags increased from 13% to 60% and the percent of passengers with airbags increased from 3% to 50%.2 This finding alone is sufficient to reject the claim that airbags would prevent 12,100 fatalities, as promised in the documentation used to justify the airbag mandate".
"In one case a woman passenger in a vehicle with no passenger airbag suffered ear injuries that had a devastating effect on her quality of life. A driver-side airbag deploying in a low-severity crash caused her injury. She had no crash-related trauma - her only harm was from the airbag. These injuries are, in principle, included in the injury effectiveness estimates of airbags, but some are of a nature that might be missed in the usual processes of AIS coding."
"Of the 77 drivers NHTSA identified as killed by airbags in low severity crashes, 75% were female. That is, for every male killed, three females were killed."
“In high severity fatal crashes, airbag deployment was not statistically significant in reducing the odds of belted driver fatalities.”
SCI JOURNER, "The hidden hazards of airbags", 22/June/2010, article excerpt.
"This week's nationwide recall by federal safety regulators on vehicles that contain air bags by the Japanese supplier Takata has consumers on high alert as they try to understand how a safety restraint system that is supposed to protect them could cause bodily harm.
More than 14 million vehicles from 11 automakers have been recalled worldwide since 2008 over concerns about the Takata-made air bags, including Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Mazda and BMW, mostly from models made in 2008 or earlier.
In some cases, drivers died after a Takata air bag inflater ruptured and sprayed metal shrapnel into the car. Regulators are asking for more information on the propellant being used in Takata air bags, to find out if ammonium nitrate—a common compound used in fertilizer—is one of them".
CNBC, article excerpt, 20/November/2014, Lori Ioannou.
But we will discuss many more about the huge topic "airbags" in a specific page with the central idea "airbags" and if there may be better alternatives, later on.
(Of course I know that here you are hearing another voice).
Introducing SARAC.
What is SARAC:
"The Safety Rating Advisory Committee (SARAC) is an international forum initiated by the German insurance organisation GDV and the European Comité Europeén des Assurances (CEA). It brings together experts from the crash research community, government agencies, universities and automobile manufacturers. Research was undertaken in the SARAC 1 and SARAC II projects between 1999-2006 funded by the European Commission and the Comité Europeén des Assurances (CEA). In SARACII, safety ratings from around the world were examined to identify and develop advanced methods to assess crashworthiness and aggressivity and other aspects of statistical reliability, presentation of results and areas requiring further research.
SARACII indicated that an ideal retrospective rating should have:
- A measure of impact severity
- A range of variables that provide good proxies for impact severity if no measure is available
- Good data on non-vehicle variables that affect injury outcomes and differ from vehicle to vehicle
- Full reporting on injury and non injury crashes
What SARAC have found:
Important to remember that a Syncro has a subchassis, so the buckling of the 2wd Vanagon's cabin you see here cannot happen with a 4wd, Syncro Vanagon/t3.
Vs an Oldsmobile Cutlass, with a very strong structure.
Since the Vanagon is well described here, let's see, briefly, the Oldsmobile, with it's impressive engine bonnet:
The Vanagon, according to the IIHS, is, between other 3-4 cars, the safest car of the 80's, with the lowest death rate.
But, strangely enough, the same is true for the Cutlass!
They have the same IIHS death rate!
But the same death rate is achieved by another, above mentioned, offset crashed against Vanagon, car: the Volvo 745!
Lets' have a look:
So here is another factoid:
Factoid #2:
Two cars with the same crash/death rating, when tested the one vs the other, do not, necessarily, behave equally, are not equally good or bad!
Let's remember how the Volvo 745 received the 50% offset frontal collision against the Vanagon:
29/August/2018
#1
Real life crash test and the driver's description:
From start to end of the accident it took
#2
Folksam, the big Swedish insurance company, gave the maximum grade to the t3's, (2wd), passive safety:
Some more real life crashes from my archives of the 40 years, (almost), research:
#1
The inside of the van looks like a bomb went off. The water tank exploded (in fact I couldn't even see any remains) and the cabinetry was matchwood and spread everywhere. The mountain bike I had in the back was bent and most everything else was smashed and soaked with water. I took a trip to hospital in an ambulance but checked out OK with just a minor cut above my left eye. Tha van is at a tow yard in Corvalis now.
One of the fortunate aspects of the crash was that my wife was following in her car (she had joined me late) saw the whole thing and we were able to rescue some of our possessions and get home. The other is that our dog was in the front with me and not sitting on the rear bench seat where he often sits - he would not be alive now if he had been.
I am impressed with how well the area around the front door absorbed the impact without deforming into the driver space - mostly it was absorbed by the frame around the wheel arch and the sill along the bottom of the door (note the damage to the front wheel). I am not sure the outcome would have been as good in a car. Also of interest was the fact that the propane tank was full and the fridge was on at the time of the crash. There have been numerous posts in this forum about the advisability of doing this. All I can say is that with this sample size of one, the crash cut off valve worked perfectly - I could not even smell any propane, not that I am recommending it mind you!"
#3
"Here's a story that just happened tonight in the Big Apple!
I was driving down Canal street in Manhattan and a psycho in a non VW van rammed into another car.
He decided to flee the scene and slammed through me driving insanely fast (in Friday night traffic!) to make his escape.
Everyone is safe and fine including my precious baby. Although he escaped, my only damage is a mangled bumper.
That's right, an aggressive driver in a large, equal sized vehicle intentionaly attacked us, and ripped apart his entire front end.
We didn't even feel it; and he was at full ramming speed. He looked right into my eyes and gunned it.
Well, he escaped to the Holland Tunnel, no one got a plate #, and the NYPD probably won't be able to do much. But they were very nice and gave me a chocolate cannoli. Sometimes chocolate does make everything better.
So, just remember, we're driving tanks here. A Westy is the safest choice you can make for your family, your life. My passeneger friend was amazed that I wasn't even fazed. Guess I'll just pop off that bumper. I love knowing that I don't drive some fancy pants plastic car that I have to cry about.
This website was my first step to owning a Westfalia, and you know what, okay, I'm getting very misty here, special, special blessings to Captain Mike, the support I've had to follow through and love my Westy, saved two lives tonight.
Captain Mike, if I had given up and was in any other vehicle, I wouldn't be writing this post right now. I'm sending much love to the board tonight, and thanks for giving so much. Every moment in the Westy is special, but this experience is another level of perspective for me.
Love, Adriane"
#4
Photos by Brian Gawle
18/November/2018
Today proudly present to you three rare documents. NHTSA's crash test of the early, aircooled, Vanagon, the test for the watercooled Vanagon and the last one with the changed rules for operating the same tests at higher speeds.Unfortunatelly there was no test for the Syncro which proved to be much better in the real life crash tests, due to it's subframe chassis.
These three documents, as well as, the next comments, which are repeated here, of some terrified Volvo officials, after the crash test of the 740 vs Vanagon, cannot be found anywhere else.
Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)
Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.
The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"
#1 1980
#2 1985
#3 1988
30/November/2018
Are you starving for accuracy?
Real-World Crash Data Disputes NHTSA and IIHS Test Results
09 January 2024
As I told you into my previous post, a very questionable crash test, fulfilled by a Swiss insurance company called ¨ΑΧΑ¨ is under investigation.
My research illuminates some novel manners for the automotive ideas: ¨ΑΧΑ¨ introduces fake crash tests! At least for one of them, officially, they admitted that it was fake!
The crash test, which attracted my attention is between a VW T3, (2WD, which is an important distinction, for this combination), vs a VW T5, made in ¨ΑΧΑ¨.
But, firstly, let me show to you the prism through which, here in the Syncro Heresy, we see it.
Here is the fake crash test, (fake as ¨ΑΧΑ¨ officially recognizes it):
And here “AXA” apologizes:
Fake fire at crash show: AXA apologizes – “No damage to the underbody”
After the crash test, AXA admitted to 24auto.de that the electric car had been manipulated.
The batteries were removed and the Tesla was ignited using pyrotechnics. (Blog’s underlying).
Now, again in response to a specific request from 24auto.de, the insurance company also had to revoke the last alleged risk of electric cars: the dangerous damage to the underbody after crossing a traffic island with a risk to the batteries did not even exist.
https://www-24auto-de.translate.goog/news/entschuldigung-tesla-fake-feuer-crashtest-akku-gewicht-risiko-elektro-auto-vw-e-golf-axa-91748420.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=el&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Now let me to introduce to you what all the syncronauts are waiting for: t3(2wd), vs t5, AXA crash test!!!
Of course this is not enough to admit that this crash test is not... hmm... accurate also, so we have to elaborate, (a little bit).
The Syncro Heresy