Here's What Happens When You Crash A 1998 Toyota Corolla Into A New One
We all know that modern cars are much, much safer than their older counterparts. However, that doesn’t stop these sort of tests being quite shocking to watch.
Only a few months ago we were looking at the results of a crash test from Euro NCAP which involved the latest Honda Jazz crashing into a Rover 100 from 1997, and in a similar vein, ANCAP (Australasian New Car Assessment Program) has orchestrated a head-on smash between 1998 and 2015 Toyota Corollas. Each was travelling at 64km/h (40mph) at the point of impact.
The exterior footage looks bad enough, but the most shocking part is arguably the interior view, which shows just how far the dashboard is pushed into the cabin.
Speaking about the test results, ANCAP CEO James Goodwin had the following to say:
“The older car sustained catastrophic structural failure with dummy readings showing an extremely high risk of serious head, chest and leg injury to the driver. It achieved a score of just 0.40 out of 16 points – zero stars…In contrast, the current model performed very well with a five star level of protection offered, scoring 12.93 out of 16 points.”
ANCAP also reports that cars built in the year 2000 and earlier account for a disproportionate amount of fatal crashes in Australia. They make up 20 per cent of all registered vehicles in the country, yet are involved in 33 per cent of of fatal crashes. It’s a similar story in New Zealand.
For us car enthusiasts who tend to have a penchant for older metal, these kind of tests present a bit of a dilemma. Classics and modern classics are generally more interesting than modern cars, but statistically you are taking a bigger risk getting behind the wheel. Are you happy with that risk, or do tests like these make you think about getting something a little newer? We’re keen to hear your thoughts.
Growing up on a diet of World Rally Championship highlights and lengthy Gran Turismo 2 sessions, a life in cars was as good as inevitable for Matt.
Comments
They would have just coppied the results from any indian car, why crash 2 perfectly good cars?
The front end of that ‘98 Corolla looks quite a lot like the 93-97 USDM Corolla.
No Airbag: how to die like a REAL MAN
None of that would happen if you have a rollcage
I still only drive 30 year old cars, nothing will change that. No abs, pas or airbags makes you drive more cautiously.. If some hits me at speed in something modern, I was probably doomed anyway.
Who will crash like this without at least one driver applying the brakes though
for me, a new driver. driving a car with 175/60 tyres no abs, esp or any other sh*t, teached me the limits of the car, what can happen in any situation, and etc. So in the end not safer car made me safer driver. ;)
Smashing observation
Modern cars are for people who can’t drive. So when they crash they ‘ll be safe inside. Old cars are for pros.. we know how to get away from a crash.(This is not an excuse. Its the truth)
Sorry, that’s not true at all… If you have a front impact that is not your fault, how would you deal with?
Old cars for pros because we know how to get away from a crash? You obviously have never been in an accident
Poor ‘98 Corolla. I’d rather have the old one anyways :(
Rollcage and 5 point harness. Problem solved+Racecar status
Something’s fishy. The ‘98 Corolla performed SIGNIFICANTLY better in a standalone crash test conducted by the IIHS back when that car was new. A head on collision where both cars are going at 64km/h is the equivalent of each of those cars crashing into a solid barrier at that speed. In the IIHS test, which is exactly that (crashing the car at an offset into a solid barrier at 64km/h), the structure held up fairly well, while in this video, the passenger compartment crumpled like a bag of crisps.
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it seems to me like the structure of the old corolla was weakened just to prove a point. Cars don’t magically become less safe over time unless the structure has been impaired in some way, like rust. The example they used here seems to be in excellent condition, so unless it was weakened on purpose, then it doesn’t make sense why it would fail so miserably at a test it passed with “acceptable” results when it was new.
Also.. Why does it not have a damn Airbag? At least one for the driver seat, it’s form 98 come on…
Well, I’m not physicist, but I think that two cars crashing at the same speed, is not equal to crash against a solid barrier at that speed… There are two cars at 64 km/h against each other, so the impact is harder
One car crashing into a barrier at 40mph is one thing.
A head on collision between two vehicles driving at 40mph is equivalent to an 80mph impact.
Yup, been thinking that as well
In that rover video too, that car had a pretty hilarious video from the start as well. These are just marketing stuffs making new cars appear better.
Australia my friend. Airbags didn’t become a compulsory thing here until the early 2000’s if my information is correct. Also ADR standards where vastly different back then compared to today. Also a key factor here is that Corolla was built in Australia, Corolla was locally produced from the late 80’s through to 1999 in Altona/Port Melbourne and had to meet the previous ADR standards back then. So the car we received may look the same but would be different say to a car sold in Europe or America. from 2000 Corolla was imported from Japan and the Port Melbourne site closed so Altona could focus on manufacturing Camry. Interesting trivia fact the first car to offer airbags as standard in Australia was the 1993 VR HoldenCommodore.