I was reading an interesting thread on the Hagerty forum (I have my 78 XJ6L insured by them) about do we feel safe driving our classic cars. Lots of people said they don’t but mostly it seemed to be due to other distracted drivers!!!
Anyway, crumple zones were mentioned and it started me wondering if Sir William and co. designed our XJs with crumple zones or not. Please don’t go out and test it to find out but does anybody know?
I think we have door side protection beams.
thanks
David
Hi David,
The Ford *definitely came out the loser in that conFRONTation!!!
Do I feel safe in my older cars?
Objectively, they are not as safe. Do I fret on it?
No: I have belts in the ones that didnt come with them, I drive EXTREMELY defensively, and—like we all do, irrespective of our rides’ safety—assume the risk.
The ford and the xj driver both would’ve lost some structural integrity, I guess.
Naturally one as a driver is seldomly responsible for a crash, it’s always the others. In the rare case of a collision we should definitely depend on the xk engine plowing through any obstacles with its weight-fueled ‘torque’. Assume the risks, and try to have more enjoyment than you have security concerns which can bring end to all enjoyment in seconds, just as well as a crash can.
Thing is, air bags and safety cells do so much for you as driver and especially passenger, it is truly amazing! Now, the xj40 had air bags, did it have a crumple zone as well?
Are the saddle tanks a security concern? I wonder. Probably not ford pinto (?) level, but still very much exposed?
I found the answer to my own question in the brochures from the 1968 launch of the XJ6 kept by jag-lovers here: http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/xj/xj6_9-68_30_l.jpg
It says:
So, yes, we have crumple zones.
David
Air bags i am fairly sure came in with the X300 but the ‘40’s did have crumple zones in the chassis rails visible as indentations.
Yes, there was nothing left of it…
The cockpit of the Jag though remained intact !
There is definitely a difference.
Aristides
They did, starting in 93, apparently. Passenger airbags from94 on it seems.
If I were to be in a crash that bad I would probably sacrifice my dashboard happily if I were to survive intact as a tradeoff…
Good to know about the crumple zones, and all the ‚engineered for going fast‘ stuff. So, the fact that the fuel tanks are steel-enclosed helps with safety? Really? I don’t get the safety bit. After all, most cars post-ww1 would have enclosed tanks?
David,
at least PR talk - as in the brochure - has it. Citroen, Daimler-Benz and Volvo advertised pictures from test crashes peformed as early as in the late 1950, I’ve never seen anything like that from Jaguar. Frankly, the video rather gives an impression of rigidity than of controlled deformation. As we wrench on our cars we know that the unibody still has rail like front and rear outriggers making the body rather stiff - a “collision predator”, if you like.
In the same vein, Jaguar XJs were favorite cars in British banger races and were a top candidate in European movies and crime shows for “spectacular” car scenes, so I take it that stunt drivers liked to perform stunts in an XJ - which is probably the best compliment for a car’s passive safety qualities.
Keep on the safe side anyhow
Jochen
75 XJ6L 4.2 auto (UK spec)
Yes, they were introduced in 1973 due to US regs. There were regs that required a change in door latches, too. Among S1 cars, 73 doors, and latches on B and C pillars, are unique–one year only. Ditto for the front bumper, same reason. The bumper is US only; I assume that the door/latch changes extended to ROW but I’m not sure.
