I recently read (can't remember where) that the X308s were some of the safest cars available at the time, beating Volvo in the crash tests. I was glad to learn this. Have you heard anything or experienced any incidents that demonstrated this cars safety?

 

If you look at a totalled X308 you can tell that the cabin capsule is well isolated from the effects of a head on collision. After you've seen a few ...

Anyways, you probably read it at jaguarforum.co.uk in the last week or so.

 

No, I read it in some auto book/magazine a few months ago. Anyway, it nice hear.

 

I don't agree. Look at cars that were hit hard in the front and especially offset wrecks. See how that hood edge comes dangerously close to penetrating the windshield? Not good. Over the years there have been some celebrities severely in a Jag (I only know because it makes the "news") Barbara Mandrell, Paula Abdul and the guy that used to host Family Feud. He was hurt bad in one and eventually killed himself. Not that this was the fault of Jaguar of course.

Near my house a lady was killed in a later model XJ8 (a '05 I think). The speed limit is 35 and to look at the car you would be stumped by the situation. The Jag tangled with a Mercedes-Benz that had damage to the bumper, hood, fender, etc. They fire department had to use the "jaws" to pinch the top of the jag off and the lady died of head injuries.

Of all the X308 Jags I've seen wrecked they are always minor things that do enough to blow the bags and bend things enough to total the car. Surviving a bad wreck in one of these is a freak occurrence. Coming out of one with bad injuries should be expected especially if you are not a midget.

 

Yea the hood always seems to pop up on these cars in front accidents. Side impacts scare me more in this car though. Even the X300 (which has weaker B pillars though) side impact crash test in Jaguars offical video looked bad! The side impact airbags on the X308 are tiny and appear to only be there to pass government side impact legislation. There is no head protection.


If you study that video closely, you will see that the body flexes a lot in a full frontal crash test. However, again, the X300's chassis is supposed to be a bit weaker than the X308. Even the rear door opening near the rear wheels and the trunk were flexing about. Rear impact looked like it would def. jam the rear doors shut.

How about getting rear ended with things in the trunk? The will be forced into the gas tank!

One good thing however, is the front ends dont seem to crumple in to the passenger compartment at all in all the totaled XJs I have seen. The front seems realtively rigid.

 

However, the driver of the other car in Barbara Mandrell's head on collision died and it happened back in 1984. Paula Abdul's accident was in 1990 and was supposed to be minor injuries. The family fued guy commited suicide in '96, so the Jaguar crash had to been a Xj40, XJS or early X300.


The XJ40s involved in side impact collisions look horrible. The X308 is an improvent.

At least none of these are XJ8 accidents.....

 

Actually, I have a recollection that Mandrell credited the Jaguar with saving her life....it *was* a head-on collsion, after all.

Paula A. suffered *minor injuries* , I think.

I don't recall who the Family Feud guy even was. I hardly remember the show :-)

Older Jags were known to be extremely over-built, structure-wise. The newer ones? Maybe not so much?

Might find some info on the Insurance Institute web page.

Cheers
DD

 

There is some British study to show that, in Britain, the XJ has the same mortality rate as the S Class.

 

You might be referring to the recent study done in cooperation with the British insurance companies.

The conclusion of the commentator was that the X308 had excellent survivability rates in frontal collisions. Of course they are lucky enough to not have to dodge urban assault vehicles on a regular basis.

 

 

A little bondo and she'll be good as new :-)


Cheers
DD

 

People commonly have the misconception that older cars are more 'solid' than new cars and would perform better in a crash. That is false. What might appear to be 'thicker metal' or etc. Actually has little to do with overall crash performance due to the complex physics at work. The XJ40s side impact performance is poor. The B pillar is not nearly as strong as the X308 nor is the door structure. The X308 is lighter and has greater torsional rigidity than the XJ40 and X300 although I have read that some people say "the xj40 has thicker metal" and would perform even better than a X350 in an accidet. Totally false.


Lastly, I think Jaguar may has designed the hood to pop open during a crash so it won't act as a stressed member in the accident, for the hood latch location at the base of the windshield is not strong. Generally cars will be weak in that area, but with a forward opening hood, they don't have to worry about that problem.

 

The XJ40 was designed to meet 40 mph Federal offset crash regulations which never materialised.
The X300 is an evolution of the XJ40 structure so this puts the X300 in good stead.

 

The 308 is a 300 is a XJ40. The hood is part of the crash protection - it is not designed to open. Take a look at the hood latch.

Jaguar did not have the money to design and test other versions -- The XJ was built from the start to meet the USA crash requirements. Unlike MB who had the money and network to sell many cars all over the world and build accordingly

 

I understand and agree about the complexities (and endless variables) involved although I submit that disregarding sheer mass and rigidity probably isn't approriate, either, given the extreme disparity of sizes and weights of cars we have on the road today.

It might be helpful, in discussions of crash performance, to clarify if we're taking about how much injury the occupant suffers or how much injury the car suffers, as the two things can diverge dramatically.








I'd certainly presume that an X350 would be engineered with safety enhancements not required or perhaps not even considered back in the early 80s when the XJ40 was on the drawing board. Even if the XJ40 was safer.....an unrealistic speculation by most anyone's measure.....I agree that it wouldn't be simply because of thicker sheet metal.


Cheers
DD

 

Has anyone been able to find actual research data/results on Jaguar crash testing? If so, where?

I did come Googling last night.....I admit to giving up after only 10 minutes or so...and came up empty-handed.

Cheers
DD

 

There is no data from crash testing on any XJ8.

The strange thing is Jaguar shows the hood flying open in their own crash testing on their offical X300 video.

 

A car can have a lot of thick steel and mass and still have very poor structural rigidity. Check out iihs.org and they have a chevy from the 50s crashing head on into a new Malibu. The 50s chevy weights more and has thicker metal. It has a weak chassis however.

 

I agree.

What I'm trying to say is that if a Jaguar was broadsided by an 18-wheeler it probably wouldn't matter if the Jag had the highest crash ratings possible.

If I plow my X300 into an Austin Healey Sprite, it probably wouldn't help the Sprite driver to know that the Jaguar crash ratings are low.

Cheers
DD

 

There was never any Euro NCAP testing on the X308 but it is known to take a hit hard and carry on. I just saw an episode of Road Wars where a criminal was making an escape from Police in a X300 and he managed to go for a long while until a HGV (Big Rig) Pinned him to the barrier. The bonnet is meant to slide up and over the screen in a crash I was told.

I have just been on Holiday in my X308 and upon first arriving in the town of my stay I was promptly rammed by a pensioner reversing his Fiat Panda into the back of my Jag. Having just fitted a Detachable Tow Bar (thanks Sean!) to my car the framework of this protected the Jag from nothing more than a scuff, the Panda however needs paint and body filler. But even without the iron of the bar the Jag would have stood up well I think! Now for a furious session with the T-Cut!!