A friend of mine was recently involved in a hoffific crash in which two people lost their lives. He was driving a gtr and they were in a murcielago. The gtr's occupants survived but those in the Lamborghini did not (may they rest in peace). He also owns a gt3rs and it makes me wonder if he and his passenger survived bc he was driving a car with the engine ahead of him and the Lamborghini's occupants weren't . I know there are many other factors at play, but other things being equal are you safer in a head on collision in a front engined car. Or is the 911 somehow engineered to be safer than say a Lamborghini or Ferrari. Just asking opinions bc of course there is no real way to quantify this.

 

I don't know. But common sense tells me the more stuff (to absorb the impact) between me and the oncoming car in a head-on collision, the better my chances...

 

At some point every car's structural ability to absorb the forces of a crash can be exceeded. Even purpose-built race cars that are expected to provide survivability for the driver at race speeds unfortunately fail at some point. Modern vehicles are designed to absorb, deform, deflect the forces of a crash and yet provide a cocoon of survivable space for the occupants. you did not mention critical factors surrounding the accident your friends were involved in. Speed, impact with an immovable object (i.e. bridge abutment) vice another moving vehicle, angle of impact, seat belts (?), rollover, fire, etc, etc, all play a factor in crash survivability.

 

Probably not if you're in a '55 Chevy. In a severe head-on you'd end up with the engine in your lap (or the steering column through your chest). Contrast for example, late model manufacturers such as Mercedes (and probably others) that design their engine cradle to submarine the engine to the rear in the event of a head on crash and keep it out of the passenger compartment. The rest of the vehicle is designed to deform and absorb the force of the crash. Porsche uses a number of different metals and materials in their structures to provide the necessary protection.

 

seriously.

 

A motor isn't a crumple zone designed to adsorb impact. Porsches have strong bodies, but the wrong set of variables can do in anything.

 

Is this the crash you're talking about?

http://jalopnik.com/5981770/police-say-deadly-nissan-gt+rlamborghini-crash-was-not-racing-related

Because I don't think any cars are designed to take a head on at freeway speeds.

It looks like due to the Lamborghini being so low, the GT-R may have driven up over it and flipped.

 

If I read that right they were on opposite sides of the road and the Lambo crossed the median and slammed into probably the only other supercar on the road that day, the GTR. This has nothing to do with front/rear engine. A 24 year old girl was driving a borrowed car that she may not have been familiar with on a newly built stretch of road and lost control of the vehicle.
I don't care what she was driving or what she hit, If she was traveling say 70 MPH and crossed the median and hit another car going 70 mph it would have been catastrophic.
It's a shame two folks died(possibly a third will) but the fact that a lambo hit the GTR was pure coincidence. Sorry about the loss of your friends.

 

the op has posed a valid question i was wondering the same thing a friend with a mercedes said i was a dead man in a headon collision due to engine placement

we hopefully wont test this in real life.

 

Mercedes used to drive their cars into trees as crash tests. What do they know

 

Yes the OP did ask a valid question, even if the example given was poor. Since Porsche is too small for crash test data you have to look elsewhere for this kind of information.

Comparing my wife's 2012 Mercedes SUV to my 2006 Porsche with identical coverage. The Porsche collision and comprehensive premiums are higher, but the personal injury premiums are much lower.

You can see for yourself at the IIHS site. Porsche fairs well versus other sports cars in personal injury category. Now I can't say this means they are safer in a crash (could be any number of other reason, e.g. people don't crash as often, who knows) but insurance companies are in this business to make money and you can see clearly how they bet on bodily injury claims by the lower premiums.

Here's a link to the site if you want to look around:
http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite

Edit... if you look at 06-08 midsize sports car, the 911 cab and coupe have the lowest two bodily injury.

 

Matty,
Great resource right there. It makes sense that collision damage would be worse than most. That is probably due to cost of repair but the real important one, personal injury it seems to fair better than most, certainly better than most other sports cars

 

I wouldn't think the engine makes a good crumple zone. Think about it, the engine is almost solid metal. I think the force would transfer straight through to whatever is on the other side.
At a glance of that jalopnik picture, it looks like the gtr went up and over the lambo, or something like that. Sad.

 

I know the internet is hardly a reliable resource, but below is a excerpt and link to an article that agrees with my logic about engines being a poor crumple zone.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-dr...mple-zone2.htm

 

Has anyone searched the NTSB website for crash test results/comparos?