Full Version - Old 1997 Rover 100 vs New 2015 Honda Jazz Crash Test

MORE than 78,000 lives (1) have been saved since Euro NCAP’s tough crash safety tests were launched 20 years ago this week. Today, Euro NCAP reveals it has published over 630 safety ratings, crash-tested some 1,800 cars and collectively spent over 160 million Euro (2) to make cars safer.
The first tests exposed safety failings in top-selling family cars, forcing a fundamental rethink in the way vehicles were designed to prevent accidents and save lives. Twenty years on, 9 out of 10 cars sold on the European market hold a Euro NCAP rating and the motor industry actively supports the development of new requirements for the top safety ratings.
Today, the results of crash tests (4) of two family cars built 20 years apart underline the huge advances in vehicle safety since 1997. Safety technologies that were non-existent or optional at most - such as driver and passenger airbags, side protection airbags, belt reminders and electronic stability control - are now standard on all cars sold in Europe.
“We are very proud - as we mark 20 years at the forefront of road safety - that Euro NCAP’s programme of safety tests has achieved major, life-saving improvements in cars and has helped Europe reach the lowest road fatality rate for any region in the world (3).” said Secretary General, Michiel van Ratingen.
“Euro NCAP has given millions of consumers the knowledge and confidence to choose the safest cars possible. Recent years have shown a slowdown in the progress rate, however, so we mustn’t take our foot off the gas. We want to ensure that Europe’s roads get even safer in the next 20 years, not just for car occupants but for all participants in traffic. We already test many more aspects of a car’s safety than we did when we started in 1997, and that is set to continue. Next year, we will test systems that recognise and avoid crashes with cyclists, and we’re lining up a very challenging roadmap for 2020 to 2025.”
Backed by the FIA (Federation Internationale de l’Automobile), ICRT (formerly named International Testing), the UK and Swedish Governments, the first Euro NCAP crash test results were revealed on 4th February 1997. Until then, car makers only had to meet basic legislative crash test requirements for new cars, the results of which were not published. It was impossible for consumers to compare the safety of one car with another.
Euro NCAP’s programme was the first time that realistic, like-for-like tests had been conducted in Europe by independent experts, and the results sparked outrage from consumer groups, members of the public and the media.
In the first round of tests, of seven popular ‘supermini’ sized cars, the Ford Fiesta and Volkswagen Polo each achieved three stars out of the then-maximum of four, based on protection levels offered to adult occupants.
The top-selling Rover 100 achieved only one star while the Fiat Punto, Nissan Micra, Vauxhall/Open Corsa and Renault Clio achieved only two stars. When pedestrian protection was assessed, not one vehicle scored more than two points, suggesting manufacturers were not designing cars with vulnerable road users in mind.
Leading car manufacturers attacked the tests, claiming they were so severe that it was ‘impossible’ for a car to achieve four stars. Five months later, however, Volvo’s S40 became the first four-star car for occupant protection.
Max Mosley, the first Chairman of Euro NCAP and Chairman of Global NCAP said: “Twenty years on from what started as a controversial programme, rejected by manufacturers, and supposedly aiming for unrealistic safety standards, Euro NCAP is now firmly part of the automotive mainstream. Thousands of fatalities have been prevented, consumer demand for safety is high, manufacturers compete on safety rating results, and vehicle safety standards continue to improve.”
“The consumer awareness model deployed so effectively by Euro NCAP has not just fundamentally changed the European market, it has helped to catalyse other NCAPs across the world in middle and low income countries. Consumer pressure informed by crash tests is helping to make rapid changes in levels of safety in India, Latin America and the ASEAN region. Euro NCAP has truly had a global impact, a proud road safety legacy that has saved countless lives.”
Euro NCAP President and Thatcham Chief Technical Officer, Andrew Miller: “The impact of these tests cannot be overstated. Until Euro NCAP, consumers only had the manufacturers’ word for it. Now we have the safest cars ever and the safety levels of each car are there for all to see. This success could only be achieved by actively working together in Europe under one umbrella and by continuing to invest in better safety.”
If you like DPCcars videos please subscribe: goo.gl/BSIaFc

[@flyguy5941]

I had a 2008 Fit. In December 2010 an East bound four wheel drive Jeep lost control at 70 mph, crossed the median between the East and westbound lanes of the expressway, and crashed head on into my fit. My passenger and I walked away. The damage to the fit in this test was similar to the damage to my fit, although my fit had damage across most of the front end. When we came to a stop, my fit was in the middle of both west bound lanes. I started the fit and actually drove it off to the side of the highway. Bottom line, the fit saved two lives that day. The four people in the Jeep survived but with injuries. The axel was completely torn away on the Jeep. Thank you Honda Fit.

[@jay-uo2bi]

Just curious, first gen or second gen? There are first gen 2008 Fits and second gen 2008 fits. Year that the generations crossed over. :)

[@bens1972]

You hear so man older people say... “They don’t make cars like they used to” Errrrm....this is the reason? 😳

[@aaronjaroniewskyy244]

The reason is that new cars have more and more electricity which makes them not as reliable as the old ones. Well my grandpa says that.

[@WhiteSlift]

I bought my mother-in-law a Rover 100 and told her it's perfectly safe to drive.

[@sashapetit8639]

Were you referring to a crash at 2 mph? LOL

[@toyoscio]

@@sashapetit8639 Lol

[@zackgalbraith3555]

Because it is safe

[@RT-yz9fp]

Safe to drive. Not so safe to crash!

[@Andronicus2007]

Let's face it, it was out a of date design even in the 90s. It's a mid 80s design, basically.

[@Sacto1654]

You can immediately see the difference: note that in the old Rover 100, the crash forces were *NOT* absorbed by the front engine area and resulted in the front passenger area deforming, which would have resulted in possibly fatal injuries to driver and front passenger even with the airbags. On the Honda Jazz (neé Fit), the front engine area just about completely absorbs the impact force, and the front passenger area stays relatively intact, which means the drive and front passenger will likely survive the crash with relatively minor injuries.

[@daviddavidsonn3578]

"possibly"??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@aaronjaroniewskyy244]

My grandpa says one thing about safety of cars: If you are a good driver every car is safe for you.

[@howard81]

Not if someone crashes into you...

[@kallesirvio2695]

your grandpa must always drive at 3am when nobody is around...

[@stanleydea6081]

The Rover 100’s driver missed the air bag.

[@paulillingworth1242]

Interesting results however the metro (100) is a direct refaced Austin metro design from 1981 and should never have been deemed a modern car in 1997 also be interesting crash them into each other

[@simonabbott7323]

Metro development began in the late 60's but the prototypes were ditched. Metro as we know it began life in 1974 and was launched in October 1980.

[@MavAuto-Pete]

That Rover 100 Metro that was absolutely shocking it was like a bit of foil paper being scrunched up. Inside of the cabin is worse I don't think you will get out without your bones being in the right place and being intact

[@bartosziwanski4535]

See how front windscreen fell off completely in Rover 100, and the whole bonnet twisted to the right. Also Rover 100 jumped u. Pls. note also that the airbag didn't stay in a front position to protect the head of a driver. Another point is the head restrains. They don't make their jobs. Then take a CLOSE LOOK what happened with Jazz. Even the bonnet is shorter it wasn't destroyed completely. The front panel just after steering wheel is absorbing the whole impact. Front windscreen stayed where should be, this same is with head restrains. Jazz jumped a little only because it's well balanced. I'm driving instructor who use 2nd generation (2010) of Honda Jazz. This year (2020) I'm changing my car to new......... Honda Jazz! I'm a huge fun of this car. I'm the person who is 7 days on the road (6 for working) for the last 12 years. People who are driving it MOSTLY they're not good drivers. When I bought this Honda in April 2015 it had 29.000 km. No on 11 May 2020 it has 311.000. ... It was NO MAJOR PROBLEMS with it. I'm living advertising of HONDA.

[@toyoscio]

In other words Rover 100 is a death trap

[@bens1972]

I think Rover took the car off sale very soon after EuroNcap tested this. It should have been pensioned off in 1987 not in 1997 (after 7 years, like most other cars)

[@howard81]

They did indeed pull it very quickly after this. The plan was to produce the Metro and classic Mini until ~2000 when the new Mini planned to launch. I hate to think how a classic Mini would fare in a crash test!

[@Aranimda]

Just like with the old Rover 100 crash test, the airbag goes up to the roof and provide zero protection to the driver.

[@briansaiditsoitmustbetrue4206]

They picked the Rover 100 for this test on purpose..... It was a car that was already at the end of its production run ..It was also a car that was just an Austin Metro with a slight refresh and newer engines... It was a design that had been on sale since 1980 ..A similar car from 1980 such as a MK 1 Ford Fiesta would have also faired just as bad in this crash test.

[@milkywaffles5701]

The rover 100 got a 1 star rating in 1997, of course it crumples like a biscuit at 64kph. Better to compare the 5 star honda jazz with the 5 star renault laguna of 2001 to see just how far safety standards has changed. This is like comparing a brand new iphone with a cheap old wind-up clock

[@zackgalbraith3555]

Rover 100/metro is the best car ever

[@bryandavidson9682]

At what of speed was the Rover 100 going at?

[@pugsareawsome5202]

Bryan Davidson 64 kmh

[@EinkOLED]

10 mph

[@LIHTIAH]

This is not same becose rover was unsafest car in that time, Ford Fiesta or Opel Corsa will real show 90s cars safety

[@diecksl]

The airbag saved his life NOT!

[@ssn5041]

Thank you ~~

[@lakshyasamaiyar916]

Jazz is always best

[@EinkOLED]

I wonder how many Rover 100 drivers died in accidents?

[@mrflamewars]

As an American, what is a Rover 100 and why does it crumple like a beer can?

[@christianplummer3315]

John It was a popular small car in the 90's which was pretty much a death trap

[@mrflamewars]

Christian Plummer How can a car that was so badly made not have been produced by general motors? I thought it was just American cars that were gigantic pieces of shit like that.

[@christianplummer3315]

90's safety of small cars were terrible even though it was being improved from the 80's, people drove tiny cars like this and they just weren't strong

[@luismiguelrodriguezpina5122]

I think Rover had this deal with honda to make their cars in the 90's

[@Nimmo1492]

It was designed in the late 70s, then due to chronic mismanagement and underfunding, kept in production with relatively minor updates until 1997.

[@vincegamer]

same speed?

[@flylikealbatross7441]

vincegamer Yes 64 km/h

[@RioGamerZ]

you should make both car crash each other.not like in the video for realistic result

[@pugsareawsome5202]

The deformable barrier crumples exactly like a doing that would be EXACTLY like this

[@gillan8274]

The reason the Rover fared so bad is that it was pretty much only designed for old people who’d use them on Sunday’s for going to church and they were built to survive town centre bumps and dings not motorway speeds whereas if you were on motorways daily you’d buy a bigger Rover perhaps a 600 or an 800 not a tiny CITY car.

[@x66Hawk66x]

These test are done at typical urban speeds.

[@daviddunmore8415]

I had one as a courtesy car in the early 90's, Horrible thing, felt about as solid as a beer can!

[@livenloud6697]

Dont try this at home👍

[@黄锦程]

至于坐在车里的人的下场恐怕不言而喻。

[@brabass773]

JazzのAピラーは伊達に太く無いんですね。

[@DW-cs6vy]

A motorbike is safer than this car

[@anthonyperkins7556]

The Jazz is far safer, the Rover 100 NOT

[@zackgalbraith3555]

Rover is safer for many reasons

[@anthonyperkins7556]

@@zackgalbraith3555 The Rover 100 is a deathtrap based on elderly mechanicals dressed up in a refreshed stylised body. The EURONCAP test exposed it's failings and showed it up for its crash worthiness which was not the best - it crumpled up and folded and would cause a lot of disabling and life threatening injuries to people in it which caused a lot of negative publicity in all the national newspapers forcing Rover's hand in stopping production and abandoning it. The Honda Jazz is safer than the Rover 100 and you'd be far less injured in it too..

[@zackgalbraith3555]

@@anthonyperkins7556 I have always stuck with my rover 100s and crashed 1 at about 55mph and it was no where near as bad as that and I got it repaired and I bought my 1997 100 in 2002 and it still running like a dream

[@anthonyperkins7556]

@@zackgalbraith3555 So EURONCAP are liars and are still wrong are they? There is also a Top Gear report on this car's crash test and it also looks grim, watch it and see if you still disagree with it when you see the crumpled body and folded passenger compartment. You cannot legislate for idiots who will widely ignore motoring laws to drive at whatever speed they like whom are likely to crash into your car and the more unsafe your car is in a crash test, the more likely it is you will be badly injured or possibly die as a result of it - fact. Rover withdrew the 100 after all the negative publicity over the failings that the fatal crash test exposed, and nobody wants to buy a death trap if it is likely to injure you and your family, I certainly wouldn't want to put my family and friends / relatives at risk of that.

[@zackgalbraith3555]

@@anthonyperkins7556 well I take my friends and family out in it and it's a lovely car

[@bEEBO178]

These were always nasty little rotten shitboxes. Don't let anyone tell you othetwise!

[@mpasistasyalanci]

if you watch closely the jazz hit the barrier like a cannonball and smashed it completely, ok ok you would not care for a wall more than your family's life, but if the newer car hits an other maybe older car what would happen then? I have a question if someone knows, i have a 93 peugeot 106 xsi , nice little car in handling and drivers pleasure but not safe at all if you crash (i think 2 stars the 2000 model with extra airbags), if in the future i can afford a newer car i would like to keep my little love and put a rollcage in it, so i can give it to my child and let him know the driving experience of the old light cars, could the cage make it safe as a 4 or 5 star car without wearing 4 point harnesses and a helmet?

[@pugsareawsome5202]

mpasistasyalanci it depends on the structure and the rollcage

[@no1DdC]

No, a roll cage would be dangerous without a harness and helmet, since you would smash into the hard metal in case of an accident. There's a reason car manufacturers have abandoned metal dashboards and full cages are only found in race cars.

[@peterbustin2683]

Absolutely not !

[@canaldenovidades6811]

Tooooop

[@OverlandTT]

Comparing a metro/rover 100 is a joke! I could hit that with a wet sponge and it would fall to bits! Crash that jazz into a 2001 C-Class! The Honda would be dead!

[@dave6018]

Hardly , fith gear did a test old volvo vs a modern small car and the volvo lost

[@johnrroberts7900]

What genius! Comparing crashing a tiny 800 kg car with a much larger 1100 kg car. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 300kg more body weight + extra length to absorb the shock means that apples aren't being compared with apples here. Furthermore, the Honda's body rigidity has been achieved by substantially reducing both side and rear vision by using smaller window openings (and don't forget the Honda's windows are darker - but all side windows are wound down here). Better side and rear vision helps drivers avoid accidents in the first place, especially at night!

[@larrythes]

What the fuck are talking about? These extra 300kg are not only body enforcements but extra comfort equipment too. In fact, if you strip down the Honda of all the comfort equipment it may be the same weight. As for the extra length, look at how much longer is the Metro's front end. Finally, they both represent the small city car category.

[@markd8799]

Thank fuck Rover are dead.

[@williamvolponivolponi7714]

Une réel voiture de MERDE oui!

[@gjorgjinikoloski4153]

Аа

[@elizabethcherry920]

It is all well and good that you guys are making cars safer, but at a price. The days a common person buying a new car is over, to buy a car you have to be making over 50k a year so that leaves the vast majority still buying unsafe as you would say cars. Ask yourself with all the money spent to make new vehicles safe is it worth it, no because most accidents are with older vehicles and or driven by people that should really not be driving any ways. These test are just another means to screw over poor disadvantage people that in most cases take care of their vehicle because the prices of a new car went through the roof. I can go on and on about this subject, but I will not. I just think it is sick that I a 50 year disabled person has to walk or rely on someone to go some place because I can't afford a car and not just vehicle either.

[@pugsareawsome5202]

Elizabeth Cherry I don't see how this has to do with poor people....

[@moonbabies]

Elizabeth Cherry For a 50 year old you are pretty stupid.

[@dallysinghson5569]

Those safety features hardly make a dent, the real reason cars are apparently going up in price is that y'all want the bells and whistles, the latest tech/gadgets in your cars.

[@TheCabinfever1977]

it looks like they took the engine out of the first old car but not the second new one

[@pugsareawsome5202]

TheCabinfever1977 ...what...

[@no1DdC]

Every single bloody time there's a comparison crash test like this one, people claim that the old car had its engine removed. And every single time, they are wrong. Furthermore, an engine does not protect, it does not help in an accident, on the contrary. It's a solid block of metal that is a danger to the occupants.

[@keno77]

The engine is in the front seat