The only reference to crashworthiness I've ever seen in a pre-Ford XJ sedan was a video of an XJ40 getting crash-tested at a particularly high rate of speed, and either that car was softened up ahead of time or the XJ40 was terribly unsafe (the thing pretty much folds up to half-length with most of the trunk and rear diff coming up into the driver's space of the cabin).

I daily-drive a combination of 89 XJS and 87 XJ6 so it's not out of the realm of possibility for me to have to put this to the test, much as I'd hate to.

Jess

 

Jess:


Check out the Serependipity (sp) prayer.


Short version, don't worry about things you can not change.


Will our 30 or 40 year old cars perform like a modern car in a crash test? Guess .


So, thoughts. Don't worry about it. Drive more careful. Get a modern car....


Carl

 

I do know this.... a minor collision and the car will most likely be called a total loss by your insurance company. Especially sheet metal damage and requiring paint .

Not too difficult to run up a bill for repairs that exceeds the market value of the car.

I remember seeing one in a Pull A Part yard with only 65,000 miles on it ... in like new condition, obviously a pampered car, but had a rather large impact area front fender / door . Enough damage to cause the car to be sold for salvage. Kinda sad. Wish I could have bought the car for spares but there are too many projects going as it is.

 

A long time ago "when I was a lad", I used to work for a towing/recovery operation that regularly got called to recover crash vehicles.

I still remember one particular incident where we got called to recover "2 cars, both immobilized, requiring flat bed transport"

When we got on scene, we saw car number 1. A S3 Daimler 6 saloon, sitting in the middle of the road. Front end pushed in, but with the drivers door open, as the driver had got himself out of the vehicle. car number 2. was "scattered" around the vicinity, with the largest remaining piece being the engine/transmission/front axle. It was originally a Nissan Bluebird. Modern (at the time) Japanese mid size saloon car.

My conclusion from this was that the Daimler was very strong and "safe" But upon reflection, and with a better understanding of how forces are transferred in an accident, I think there may be a case where a car that doesn't deform (ie it looks "strong" because it didn't get badly mangled) is in fact worse for you than a car that completely deforms, but does so in a controlled way that transfers the energy away from the occupants.

I still feel safe in my XJ40 daily driver, but I drive a little bit differently, and a lot more defensively than in more modern cars with 12 airbags.

 

I guess what I'm getting around to is I've often wondered how modern cars would do against older cars of the same size from the standpoint of how energy is transferred in the accident.

Newer cars are built to deform, collapse and disintegrate in order to dissipate forces. The driver is the most important thing, and the car is built to sacrifice itself for the sake of the driver. It's a change in philosophy from the 50s-70s where rigidity was the primary goal.

However, even in a new car, if you hit something far outside its weight class -- let's say you're driving a Miata and you get into a head-on collision with a Ford Super Duty truck -- the Miata can't help you much. The difference in weight between the two is too much for the Miata to overcome, crumple zones or no crumple zones.

Likewise, what happens if, say, you do a head-on between a SIII XJ6 and a Lexus ES350, is that the ES350 is designed to start burning off as much energy as possible through controlled deformation.

So the $64,000 question is: Would this be a case of a sledgehammer (SIII) hitting a pillow (ES350)?

I submit the worst-case scenario for a SIII crash (against a car of similar size/weight) would be to hit another SIII. Given that neither car has advanced crumple zones, they would transfer each other's energy from the crash poorly, and the risk of deceleration injuries to the drivers would be substantial.

But if the SIII hits a car meant to deform, does the SIII ever see the forces that would injure its driver? Would the ES350, for example, be "pillow soft" and absorb the lion's share of the accident forces, while the SIII never had the need to deform in the first place?

Jess

 

Thinking of a classic head-on impact, my take on it is this: The modern ES350 would intentionally crumple forward of the passenger cell, including the engine collapsing to avoid invading the cabin, however the passenger cell may remain in reasonable shape and a bunch of air bags will have deployed from every angle. The old era Jag on the other hand will take a share of the impact, but in the absence of similar crumple zones, collapsing engine and air bag attributes, its occupants must be more vulnerable. Even if the Jag sustained less deformation and the crumpled ES350 looked the bigger mess, I'm guessing the ES350 occupants would have been better protected.

 

If the jag hit the Lexus would it not benefit form the Lexus's crumple zones, physics and all that?

The other car becomes the Jags crumple zone! Half joking.

 

Yep most new cars on the road would be deceleration cushions for a S3. The big trick is to hit the soft ones , not a truck, tree or another S3.

Not much point driving an 80s car if you are really into secondary safety ( maybe a Volvo might have a few early features?) One of my cars is a 1960 model, feels like (and effectively is) like driving down the road in a 44 gallon drum on wheels.

 

Safety geeks would have had a Stoke if they saw how I used to drive my Datsun roadster. It had no air bags, no roll bar, no anti-intrusion bars, no ABS, no top, and when I first got it, not even working seat belts. It was the most just plain unadulterated fun car I've ever had!

But I felt safe and secure sitting in the seat with my arm over the door, even though I could drive under a semi trailer and scarcely have to duck.
Datsun Roadster, SPL-311; Gone But Not Forgotten by LnrB | JaguarForums.com

If I still lived in town I'd still be driving it.
(';')

 

Tis a bit of a conondrum. But, interesting, indeed. Force is proably a full course in mechanical engieering. No formal exposure there to me. Some bits here and there.

One is baseball. Good big league pitchers deliver in the mid 90's MPH.
A good pro hitter can do a little over a hundred MPH inb bat head speed. The forces are therefore similar, but in almost exactly opposite
directions!!! so, on contact, does the ball merely bounde off softly and drop quickly. Yes, in partial contact. but, on the sweet spot of the bat, 400 + feet and over the wall, outta here....

Why isn't resolved in my mind.

Now, give the SIII and the Lexus in a head on. Forget the bags for the moment. Yes, indeed, I can see the collapsing Lexus nose absorbing force in equal but opposite directions. The occupants of each benefit.

Some time back, I saw a 1/4 on nose to nose crash test. A modern Impala and a 59 Impala. Lots of force absorption on the modern Impala. Lots of force trans fer on the 59.

Too bad, a quite decent 59 utterly destroyed.

Considering the devastation by Taketa air bag failures, I'm not distressed that my Jaguar has none. My Jeep has but one, on the wheel hub. Not by Taketa, I hope. Oh, and removing a bag can be hazardous if not done correctly, and even then, I hear there is risk
involved. Explosives in the cabin, I don't get it.

And, way back, getting toseed around or even out of the cabin was a major cause of injury and worse. Pads and restraints have done wonders.

Race cars don't have air bags. The driver is restrained in every manner possible. The cabin is super strong. Except for open wheel racers, Indy, FI and the like. Extraneous stuff is to depart, leaving the cacoon in which the driver is enclosed for protection. Most fare fairly well, except for Michael Schumacher and Dale Earnhardt.

Stay away from the big rigs, you can't win, no matter what....

Carl

 

Couple of frightening vids

 

Here is some actual data

See page 112.

https://rsc.wa.gov.au/Documents/Vehi...technical.aspx

Bottom line, XJ6 Series 3 was slightly worse than average at the time. And was considerable worse that the gold standard of large luxury vehicles at the time, the Mercedes W126.

By today's standards.... it's terrible.

Drive carfully.

 

anjum, that's the vid I was talking about. Something about the integrity of that car just doesn't look right.

Jess

 

Two thoughts:


1. Right, it is staged. Some years back Chevrolet pickups had twin tanks
in saddle fashion just behind the cab. Not unusual in the day. An "investigative" reporter out to make a name, arranged a "T bone" crash and he truck's tank erupted in flame. True, in real life, not unheard of, not a good design. But, she included igniters to trigger on impact, asurring a violent scene. Busted, career same fate but figurative only!!!


2. The Focus did far worse than the old Jag. but, to the occupants of each, "macht nicht".


3. The cabin of the four door Jaguar is indeed the weakest. A box, open on two sides?? The doors!!!!


4. In our "recent" EQ, the weakness of a box was demonstrated. Multi storied apartment homes along SF's upscale Marina Greens. Street level with garages and big doors. The upper levels crashed down into the lower level in almost all.


In my former career, I saw a plenty of bad ones....


Carl

 

Barbara Mandrell, the Country Music singer, survived a massive frontal crash on Sept. 11, 1984 in Nashville TN in her XJ-6 Series 3.

I was living in Nashville at the time and saw the car in person, it was total spagetti.

Sure, she suffered knee damage and head concusions, but she was removed from the car alive as well as her two kids who were in the back seat.

 

Yeah, I remember her. And the results of a car crash. Not aware that it was an SIII.


Whew, one would've thought of her driving a Chevrolet pickup, complete with gun rack.


Carl

 

the drunk jerk that crossed into her lane and crashed against her car was the one with a pickup truck and a gun rack. He got killed so...one less drunk driver.

 

I found this picture. From the paper of Record in Tennessee on 9/12/1984
Looks like the Jag and its occupant fared pretty well. Those heavy USA bumpers and long and heavy engine block certainly helped.

 

full article.
I found another article where she testified before her state legislators on mandatory seat belt laws. I remember at the time mandatory seat belt laws were controversial, some people believed in there personal freedom and that in an accident the seat belt could trap you in the car. It was also a political season then too, Regan / Bush. Those were the issues of the day, how things have changed.

I really enjoyed this brief trip down 1984 memory lane, it was morning in America then.

 

the car twisted in a convex shape, like a bow, starting at the front, didn't fare well at all.