How safe are air cooled 911s in a crash?

How safe are air cooled 911s in a crash?

Author
Discussion

Fat hippo

Original Poster:

732 posts

133 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Following from a thread in GG regarding the relative safety of rear engined cars in a head on crash, I was wondering if there was any footage or evidence of how well air cooled 911s fared.

Obviously if my first concern was safety, I'd be looking at Volvo's and the like, but it is interesting to know how well (or not) these cars may fare

BobToc

1,768 posts

116 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
This is a slightly different question, but I do worry that as someone who has only ever driven cars with ABS, the absence of that will catch me out some day.

Johnny G Pipe

267 posts

227 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Aircooled 911? Do you mean a '65 SWB on 165 section tyres, or a 993 Turbo? biggrin


Fat hippo

Original Poster:

732 posts

133 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Johnny G Pipe said:
Aircooled 911? Do you mean a '65 SWB on 165 section tyres, or a 993 Turbo? biggrin
Being biased i'd say for the 993 but it would be interesting to know if there is much research on eralier models as well.

RDMcG

19,093 posts

206 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Its a lot more complex to answer as older cars had fewer safety regulations….just look at this test of an old and modern Chevrolet….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck&sr...

Carl_Docklands

12,102 posts

261 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Fat hippo said:
Following from a thread in GG regarding the relative safety of rear engined cars in a head on crash, I was wondering if there was any footage or evidence of how well air cooled 911s fared.

Obviously if my first concern was safety, I'd be looking at Volvo's and the like, but it is interesting to know how well (or not) these cars may fare
As I recall 911's were never fully safety crash tested by the U.S or EU/UK authorities. I doubt they filed a test for even the latest 991 but I can't be bothered to search to confirm.

Porsche conformed to all the basic regulations in order to get the cars on sale but did not file for full crash tests.

Make of that what you will.

I believe that it's because while the front passenger crash tests may have toward top of the leaderboard for the coupe (check out the thickness of the doors on a 993 onward 911), the rear passenger crash tests would have been (and probably still are) one of the worst in the industry. As the car was marketed as a 2+2 with the rear seats for children, you can see how this poses a marketing problem.

As for the 911 cabrio, well even the latest models are a potential meat grinder if the situation and speed conspire. We have seem some pretty gruesome stuff on here which I wont repost.


Edited by Carl_Docklands on Friday 29th August 21:45

supersport

4,040 posts

226 months

Friday 29th August 2014
quotequote all
Don'r crash, or if you do go in backwards biggrin

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
I cant comment on the how safe air cooled cars in terms of the way that the structure deforms etc, but they are sure built like brick st houses!

Talksteer

4,843 posts

232 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
The lack of an engine up front is a positive from a crash point of view as you can use all of the front to crumple without having to work around the incompressible engine block.

The 964 and 993 are also quite dense cars being relatively heavy for their small exterior dimensions.

However don't let that kid you. Pre late nineties cars simply weren't designed for the offset impact test ands colliding one with a modern car oz going to see you come off much worse. Modern cars have lateral beams that transmit crash loads to the unimpacted side so as you see in the old vs new videos it's essentially a two vs one impact for the crash structures in the nose. This is what lets the modern car penetrate all the way into the cabin of the old car.

Also unless you fit race seats and harnesses you will feel the lack of airbags. Even the 90's models give a lot away to the modern cars, particularly in side impacts where airbags arguably make an even bigger difference.

Finally as a low vehicle there is a good chance that your car will simply be overriden by much higher modern vehicles. The bumper of an off roader will simply crunch straight through your bonnet and lights without making contact with any of your crash structures. A side impact doesn't bear thinking about.

That said a cage and some good seats and harnesses and you'd probably be pretty safe on a track!

Fat hippo

Original Poster:

732 posts

133 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
Talksteer said:
The lack of an engine up front is a positive from a crash point of view as you can use all of the front to crumple without having to work around the incompressible engine block.

The 964 and 993 are also quite dense cars being relatively heavy for their small exterior dimensions.

However don't let that kid you. Pre late nineties cars simply weren't designed for the offset impact test ands colliding one with a modern car oz going to see you come off much worse. Modern cars have lateral beams that transmit crash loads to the unimpacted side so as you see in the old vs new videos it's essentially a two vs one impact for the crash structures in the nose. This is what lets the modern car penetrate all the way into the cabin of the old car.

Also unless you fit race seats and harnesses you will feel the lack of airbags. Even the 90's models give a lot away to the modern cars, particularly in side impacts where airbags arguably make an even bigger difference.

Finally as a low vehicle there is a good chance that your car will simply be overriden by much higher modern vehicles. The bumper of an off roader will simply crunch straight through your bonnet and lights without making contact with any of your crash structures. A side impact doesn't bear thinking about.

That said a cage and some good seats and harnesses and you'd probably be pretty safe on a track!
Despite how 'solid' the 993 feels, as some have mentioned, we shouldn't get a false sense of security over how safe it is.
I have tried searching for results before on the net but struggled to find anything.

It does make you wonder though, that despite not having an engine in the way which would reduce the energy absorption abilities, how much safety knowledge and design was there when the 993 was being developed?

Also, what difference does it make if the car is seam welded (I believe the RS models were)?

graemel

7,015 posts

216 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
I heard from a very reliable source whilst out at the factory on a structural body work course.
A pre 996 was driven remotely into a brick wall at 100mph. The front screen fell out. A new one would still fit and you could still open both doors. They are immensely strong cars.

mollytherocker

14,365 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
graemel said:
I heard from a very reliable source whilst out at the factory on a structural body work course.
A pre 996 was driven remotely into a brick wall at 100mph. The front screen fell out. A new one would still fit and you could still open both doors. They are immensely strong cars.
Thats very hard to believe. 100mph into a brick wall? Unless it went through the wall?

The Moose

22,820 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
graemel said:
I heard from a very reliable source whilst out at the factory on a structural body work course.
A pre 996 was driven remotely into a brick wall at 100mph. The front screen fell out. A new one would still fit and you could still open both doors. They are immensely strong cars.
That's not necessarily a good thing. If the car doesn't crumple, then it doesn't help slow you down.

996TT02

3,308 posts

139 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
graemel said:
I heard from a very reliable source whilst out at the factory on a structural body work course.
A pre 996 was driven remotely into a brick wall at 100mph. The front screen fell out. A new one would still fit and you could still open both doors. They are immensely strong cars.
I would doubt, nay, disbelieve that even if the mph were substituted for kph.

Cars are, as far as I can know, tested for a 30mph frontal collision.

The problem is that if you double the speed, you quadruple the energy that the vehicle has, and which needs to be dissipated by the bodyshell.

I find it quite unlikely that a car that will just about maintain the structural integrity of the passenger compartment at 30 mph can deal with four times the energy and still retain a space for a living human within it.

And that is at 60mph, not 100mph.

At that speed I would say the car would end up at less than half its original length and even a Chihuahua would have to be lucky.

aceparts

3,724 posts

240 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
I always felt incredibly safe in my 993, blasting along with both turbos puffing as hard as they can.

Then I put it in for a respray and, while waiting ended up with a V10 Audi S8. A huge, 2 tonne hulk of a car.

Upon picking up the turbo some 6 months later I've concluded that I prefer the feeling of an arms length between me and the front passenger in the S8 as opposed to reaching out and touching the passenger door on the 993!

I guess the plus side is that in the 993 you're a smaller target for another road user but if I had to be in an accident I'd take my chances with the S8 every time!

NJH

3,021 posts

208 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
Its total nonsense. I had a book years ago written with the SAAB design team for what was the then new 9-5. That thing would pass US crash testing without deforming the passenger compartment but was claimed to be on the limit of what is possible in a steel bodied car in those terms. Have any of you guys looked at air-cooled 911 body shells? There really isn't much there up front to protect you compared to the bulkhead and front chassis leg structure of any of the front engined Porsches for example. Stick it in backwards if you want to have any legs left.

Ken Sington

3,958 posts

237 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
Height is also a worrying issue. I noticed that when my 993 is parked next to my daily, which is an SUV, the highest point of the 993's roofline just reaches the bottom of the SUV's side windows.

fastgerman

1,911 posts

194 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all


The Chevrolet video above is what you should be thinking about. Crash safety and air bags are very important in a crash.

It doesn't matter how bonnets, wings etc fold up in an impact as long as the force is directed away from the cabin and the passengers remain untouched.


BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all

Fat hippo

Original Poster:

732 posts

133 months

Saturday 30th August 2014
quotequote all
Ken Sington said:
Height is also a worrying issue. I noticed that when my 993 is parked next to my daily, which is an SUV, the highest point of the 993's roofline just reaches the bottom of the SUV's side windows.
Agree with this. It's surprising just how small these cars are against modern cars