Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Theres no ncap test to go by so all we have to go on are stories and speculation. so lets hear it.

My mechanic has seen 164's crash on the track and he said they were very solid and I believe they are based on the same chassis.

They are quite large which is good but the front nose is very low and most good ncap cars have higher noses I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Compared to modern cars I would imagine the 166 would fair pretty badly. The design is 10 years old now and cars have moved on quite a bit re safety in those 10 years. Best to avoid an accident if you can!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
Compared to modern cars I would imagine the 166 would fair pretty badly. The design is 10 years old now and cars have moved on quite a bit re safety in those 10 years. Best to avoid an accident if you can!
I agree.
The design is more than 10-years old though.

Re the high nose of current 5-star encap cars, that is more to do with pedestrian impact tests than how the car and its occupants cope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Design may be 10 years old but the chassis is still up there with the best. You have to keep in mind that the 164 was built for US crash tests which are a lot more difficult to pass than EU tests. The 166 has a stronger chassis than the 164 so one can only assume that it will hold up fairly well.

But please do your best not to find out...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Now that I remember, there was a list circulating about a year ago which had a list of top 100 chassis ever built and the 164 was stronger than most modern cars including the Passat. The 166 was even higher and they were both stronger than the 360 Modena.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,171 Posts
Now that I remember, there was a list circulating about a year ago which had a list of top 100 chassis ever built and the 164 was stronger than most modern cars including the Passat. The 166 was even higher and they were both stronger than the 360 Modena.
I can't imagine the 360 doing too well in a EuroNCAP test, so probably not a great comparison.!

Difficult to find results from anything back then.
1998 Merc E-class & BMW 5-series were both 4-star, so very good.
However the same age C-class & 3-series were 2-star, so very bad. (actually lower than 2 for the 3-series).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Problem is, there were no N-Cap tests back then so nothing can be compared precisely. In any case, in that list, the 156 was better than the 164 but then look at the crash test videos to see how much the cabin space deforms in a crash - scary stuff!! I have often read how the 156 would never have passed US tests... So I guess chassis strength is not much to go by in the end. It's how a car deforms that makes all the difference and saves you from serious injury.

Personally, I don't want to find out...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,405 Posts
I think the low front could be an issue with hitting something much higher like a high rise 4X4.

The nose may go under, and may reduce the hard initial impact needed to trigger airbags.

I can't see the 166 here:

http://www.folksam.se/dpublic/a0346.nsf/vLookUpFiles/R6546.pdf/$FILE/R6546.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
I can't answer this question with any degree of objectiveness either. I'm not sure that the American tests are that tough though - just different. We certainly don't accept them in Europe, just as they don't accept ours. We have a mechanism for accepting their tests on a "one-off" basis for personal imports into the UK, but not for "type" approval.

The big problem is that no two crashes are the same and manufacturers tend to design the cars to pass the tests. Here in Europe, we don't have a rollover test so I guess they might not be that good in a rollover (or at least, no better than any other European car). I guess they'd be pretty good in a side or offset frontal because we do have tests for those.

As an "aside", I once did a seat belt anchorage pull test on an old 164 shell and it was INCREDIBLY strong. It was being filmed and was supposed to fail. Even after we'd drilled a series of small holes all round the captive nuts at the bottom of the pillars it still wouldn't let go!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,549 Posts
Fifth Gear (I think) did a truck turning into a 164 test (164 in blind spot under mirror effectively) to show what happens............actually I would have been happy to be in a 164 for the test conditions, I thought it did well.

I 'feel' the 166 is more solid, but it is all about deforming in a set style to avoid leg injuries particularly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
The 166 was even higher and they were both stronger than the 360 Modena.
That couldn't be properly tested, though, since the 360 is not NCAP rated. No Ferraris are tested, as Ferrari are not willing to have their very expensive cars destroyed! If you check the official NCAP site, you'll see there's no Bentley, Bristol, Ferrari, Lamborghini etc., let alone real exotica like Pagani or Bugatti. Not even Porsche are listed there! Could you imagine them destroying a couple of Veyrons just to tell us that it stands up OK? ;)

that Modus is like an armour piercing missile
:lol:
 

·
Registered
Mercedes Benz 190E
Joined
·
18,226 Posts
slightly o/t, i think a Ferrari 360/Porsche 911/Gallardo etc would in most cases put in a pretty good show in NCAP tests. To ensure they have the level of precision in their handling, they need to be based on a pretty solid platform. Furthermore, the chances are that - and this is a sweeping generalisation - when a 911/360/Gallardo crashes because of its own doing, it's likely to be at a far high speed than normal cars, so the strength needs to reflect that. Further, the structure needs to be able to safely carry the huge power propelling it.

With the Gallardo/R8, VAG insisted the cars pass the same useability tests that the Golf has to pass; bumper tests, ride clearance tests, starting easily even when frozen, splash tests etc. I don't think that they would overlook safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
Dunno about that! A Caterham 7 handles pretty well but I sure as hell wouldn't like to do an NCAP test sat in one! I'm with Tony. Cars like these are too "niche" to do NCAP tests. I don't there's anything sinister in that, just that the NCAP tests are primarily consumer-driven and the people who buy such cars don't have a 5 star rating at the top of their list. Those cars mentioned would have to do similar tests as part of their type approval before they could be sold, that's a legal requirement, but those tests, although very similar to the NCAP ones, aren't quite as demanding. I imagne the Bentley would do pretty well, mind!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Pop into wreckedexotics.com and you can see how well Ferrari's do in crashes. Modern Ferrari's are designed to seperate from the engine which is why you often see them end up in two parts, especially the Enzo which is all carbon. It's the only way you can make a carbon chassis safe but this feature has been passed onto the entire line up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
It's better not to know, but look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5n5t8wgcAU8

Four persons in car, all minor injuries. I think the driver was 20 years old, and his uncle gave him keys to try it out. Too many horsepowers combined with no experience and thats what you get - they hit a traffic sign, a tree, some concrete elements which were along the road, and a house. Speed was estimated at around 150 km/h, but it doen't have to be true... The roof is flattened because they hit the house with it, rear end went up while crashing into :eek: . Engine is shattered, gearbox fallen out... There is not a peace intact. Nasty :eek:
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top