>Daniel and others: allow me some uneducated guessing here. Would another
>possible reason for the difference be the nature of the tests and the vw's
>lack of crush space? The volvo vs. vanagon test was an offset test. The vw
>did pretty good too, although I'd really like to see how the lower corner
>looked afterwards. Anyhow, perhaps one reason the vw did so well is its
>front is very "hard" which allowed it to plow into the volvo. The "injury
>numbers" were good because the volvo cushioned the blow, allowing it to stop
>more slowly. The US tests by driving the vehicle into a wall, no offset,
>full contact. Because the front is so hard, there was no cushion, just the
>frame hitting the wall. This would make a much more sudden stop, and the
>occupants would get a get stopped just as quickly. Not good for injury
>numbers. VW says there are crush zones on the vanagon, but they can't be
>more than a couple inches here and there, not like the volvo which has the
>luxury of a hood and motor in the front.
>
>Again, crush zones can make a difference, but I'll drive my vw before I'd
>drive a lot (a LOT) of other cars.

I'd rather be badly shaken that mangled, as the Volvo's driver-dummy
was! Have another look at the Volvo imAGE... the driver's section of
the passenger cage has utterly collapsed. However I too would like to
know exactly what the Caravelle's lower corner looked like.