How safe are air cooled 911s in a crash?

[graemel]

I have no intention of divulging my source for the information that I have given but he is very eminent in the Porsche body work field. Whilst I agree that there is an element of thought that says that an incredibly strong shell puts far more G force loads onto the occupant, personally I would rather take my chances.
I know a number of old school 911 specialists that would back my statement up. Guys that pick them apart and repair them for a living.
I've been racing pre water cooled 911's for 20 odd years and have seen some very big accidents. Whilst the cars have been caged this does not detract from their ability to absorb a huge impact and you survive. Personally if I had to have a big acident I would rather it be in my 1989 3.2SSE than my 1991 Turbo R.

[RWD cossie wil]

I don't know much about crashing Porsches, but I can highly recommend Ford Sierras. The humble 1.8 hatch can take out joyriders a treat, and with a bit of gentle lump hammer fettling can be re-used . Please note the police didn't seem too impressed & took a somewhat dim view of the PITS manoeuvre that defeated a comparable age Vauxhall camels ear.

Having also tested the front crash absorption properties of a Sierra sapphire Cosworth, I have to conclude that having a medium sized aircraft carrier bonnet & engine bay benefitted the outcome in both cases. I would imagine any serious frontal impacts in a 911 would be exacerbated by the fact that the front is so low that vehicles ride up & into the windscreen area more easily instead of just crumpling.

I certainly feel more at risk in the 996 than my E39 5 series, which would run through solid granite I think without batting an eyelid, however this might be a good thing as feeling vulnerable generally means you take a bit more care, anyone who rides a motorbike will understand this!

[ChrisW.]

I should say, as safe as 20 + year old cars can be ...

When did airbags come in ?

Most of the rest is there ...

[mollytherocker]

My 993 gas 2 airbags. 2!

Mind you, I think my Insignia has eleventeen.

[Geneve]

I've done about 1/4 million miles in 911s of all generations, on road and track. Never had an incident, and always felt comfortable with the passive and active safety of the design of each model.

I'm sure if you trawl the internet there'll be some disturbing pictures, but that applies to all vehicles, and Ferraris in particular 'splitting in half'.

It's important to remember that each generation of 911 has been designed and developed with both road and race safety in mind, and have had to meet ever stricter domestic and FIA safety regulations. Lots of cars were campaigned in tarmac rallying in the '70s, with only a modest roll bar and harnesses added for safety. There were plenty of high-speed crashes into solid objects, that saw the occupants uninjured and the cars repaired.

[Steve Rance]

Given the choice - and should i be unfortunate enough to be in that position - I'll take a frontal prang in 911 over just about anything else bar my Defender. One of the main reasons why they are - and always have been - so successful on the race track is that they have extremely stiff chassis. Part of this is due to the rearward engine position allowing scope to engineer a lot of torsional rigidity into the frontal section of the car. This is much more difficult to achieve in a front engined car as the engine occupies the majority of the frontal area of the car and is not a stressed/load bearing part of it.

in addition, due to the engine layout, the majority of accidents in 911's result in rearward impacts and not frontal. This is especially true of the air cooled cars which did not benefit from as much differential assistance under braking as the modern water cooled cars.

[otolith]

RWD cossie will said:

I certainly feel more at risk in the 996 than my E39 5 series, which would run through solid granite I think without batting an eyelid, however this might be a good thing as feeling vulnerable generally means you take a bit more care, anyone who rides a motorbike will understand this!

Not sure about that, I think I'd say that motorcyclists are proof that the "spike in the middle of the steering wheel" wouldn't work.

[Pickled Piper]

graemel said:

I have no intention of divulging my source for the information that I have given but he is very eminent in the Porsche body work field. Whilst I agree that there is an element of thought that says that an incredibly strong shell puts far more G force loads onto the occupant, personally I would rather take my chances.
I know a number of old school 911 specialists that would back my statement up. Guys that pick them apart and repair them for a living.
I've been racing pre water cooled 911's for 20 odd years and have seen some very big accidents. Whilst the cars have been caged this does not detract from their ability to absorb a huge impact and you survive. Personally if I had to have a big acident I would rather it be in my 1989 3.2SSE than my 1991 Turbo R.

I worked in the field of crash testing for several years. I am a bit out of date. Back in the late eighties and early nineties Porsche vehicles were considered to be amongst the most crashworthy vehicles on the market. I witnessed some crash tests for a couple of models. They far exceeded the legal minimum requirement. They had and I believe, still do, extremely well Engineered and crash worthy structures. They were renowned for maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment in some very severe crash scenarios.

[Fat hippo]

Pickled Piper said:

I worked in the field of crash testing for several years. I am a bit out of date. Back in the late eighties and early nineties Porsche vehicles were considered to be amongst the most crashworthy vehicles on the market. I witnessed some crash tests for a couple of models. They far exceeded the legal minimum requirement. They had and I believe, still do, extremely well Engineered and crash worthy structures. They were renowned for maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment in some very severe crash scenarios.

From your experience are you suggesting that they could be as strong as a contemporary mercedes e class or volvo 700 series?
That would be quite impressive if it was the case.

To me, one interesting thing about the 993 is the weight. I think the quoted weight is something like 1385kg whereas a saab 9000 from the same era had a similar quoted weight. On this basis, it does seem that for a small car it was heavy and probably due to the thicker guage metal being used (as i understand).
I'm sure someone will correct me on this

[NJH]

It was the early days of deformable crash structures, the 900 had split inner wings tacked on in a few locations at the overlap to the rear part. Its all relative really, my brother used to work in a mini specialist, they crash repaired many cars hard to imagine it looking back but yes many people crashed old minis without being killed of maimed. My brother did have a huge 2.5 barrel roll crash into woodland in his 900, walked away from it despite knocking down some trees, the carnage was like one of those rally crash videos. OTOH a friends brother from back then was killed in a 900 when he fell asleep at the wheel and drove into a motorway bridge at 80.

[Slippydiff]

NJH said:

My brother did have a huge 2.5 barrel roll crash into woodland in his 900, walked away from it despite knocking down some trees, the carnage was like one of those rally crash videos. OTOH a friends brother from back then was killed in a 900 when he fell asleep at the wheel and drove into a motorway bridge at 80.

Pick the "right" trees and you have a fighting chance. Don't get me wrong, it still hurts, but you can walk away.


Unfortunately there are no "right" motorway bridges to hit.

[Goofnik]

ash73 said:

I'm amazed current 911/Boxster/Caymans aren't crash tested.

They are, just not by independent entities like IIHS/NCAP that report and publish the data. Like every other manufacturer, Porsche sacrifices a few cars to ensure it meets safety standards set by government bodies.

With some of their vehicles now selling in very significant volumes (Cayenne, Panamera, Macan), I wonder if we'll see crash tests by IIHS/NCAP in the future.

[graemel]

Pickled Piper said:

I worked in the field of crash testing for several years. I am a bit out of date. Back in the late eighties and early nineties Porsche vehicles were considered to be amongst the most crashworthy vehicles on the market. I witnessed some crash tests for a couple of models. They far exceeded the legal minimum requirement. They had and I believe, still do, extremely well Engineered and crash worthy structures. They were renowned for maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment in some very severe crash scenarios.

Thanks Pickled Piper. The reason that the air cooled 911's feel like that they are hewn from granite is that they are. I've been around these cars for a long time, built them, raced them and personally there is nothing else out there that can match their strength and durability.

[NJH]

Slippydiff said:

NJH said:

My brother did have a huge 2.5 barrel roll crash into woodland in his 900, walked away from it despite knocking down some trees, the carnage was like one of those rally crash videos. OTOH a friends brother from back then was killed in a 900 when he fell asleep at the wheel and drove into a motorway bridge at 80.

Pick the "right" trees and you have a fighting chance. Don't get me wrong, it still hurts, but you can walk away.


Unfortunately there are no "right" motorway bridges to hit.

Ouch. A mate of mine fell asleep at the wheel, the next thing he knew he was awoken by a ruddy great piece of tree sticking through the windscreen on the passenger side. Very lucky man.

[mft]

Fat hippo said:

From your experience are you suggesting that they could be as strong as a contemporary mercedes e class or volvo 700 series?
That would be quite impressive if it was the case.

Not sure about that. This video is rather eye-opening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

[mollytherocker]

mft said:

Not sure about that. This video is rather eye-opening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY

How exactly is that relevant to a 911?

[NJH]

graemel said:

Pickled Piper said:

I worked in the field of crash testing for several years. I am a bit out of date. Back in the late eighties and early nineties Porsche vehicles were considered to be amongst the most crashworthy vehicles on the market. I witnessed some crash tests for a couple of models. They far exceeded the legal minimum requirement. They had and I believe, still do, extremely well Engineered and crash worthy structures. They were renowned for maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment in some very severe crash scenarios.

Thanks Pickled Piper. The reason that the air cooled 911's feel like that they are hewn from granite is that they are. I've been around these cars for a long time, built them, raced them and personally there is nothing else out there that can match their strength and durability.

Graeme I have also seen many of the body shells of these cars in prep, the frontal area of the torsion bar 911s is nothing like as well built up and strong as a 944, 968, 928 or any of the recent cars or for that matter just about modern car. You also have a bar in the cage up front jokingly called the knee breaker because its so low. Personally I wouldn't fancy my chances in a heavy front end collision in an old torsion bar car and no amount of your rose tinted 911 blinkers and mystery guru noname dropping is going to change that.

[Baylon]

I wrote my 993 Turbo off a few years ago. I walked away from this, both cars travelling at about 30-40 mph. The dent in the roof was from the recovery company picking the car up, not from the accident.

[Pickled Piper]

Fat hippo said:

Pickled Piper said:

I worked in the field of crash testing for several years. I am a bit out of date. Back in the late eighties and early nineties Porsche vehicles were considered to be amongst the most crashworthy vehicles on the market. I witnessed some crash tests for a couple of models. They far exceeded the legal minimum requirement. They had and I believe, still do, extremely well Engineered and crash worthy structures. They were renowned for maintaining the integrity of the passenger compartment in some very severe crash scenarios.

From your experience are you suggesting that they could be as strong as a contemporary mercedes e class or volvo 700 series?
That would be quite impressive if it was the case.

From the late eighties onwards they were amongst the leaders in crashworthiness. You would not be putting yourself at risk by buying a Porsche over another contemporary vehicle and they were certainly way better than other Sports cars.

[Nurburgsingh]

There have been some comments made in this thread about the small size of early pork and the hight difference compared to 4x4's.
I was in the garage earlier and had a look - the 993 roof line isn't that different to the 997. And I've had them nose to nose in the past. Again there isn't that much in it.
I'm sure the safety cell in the 997 is much more passenger friendly but anything that has a coming together with a 2.7tonne Landrover is going to lose...