maybe you should try to imagine this situation. if the car maintained in the horizontal plane during accident and engine detached, the engine momentum is still forward and it will not leave the car since the gap below doesnt allow it, hence it will act as a crumple zone and also contribute to the kinetic energy dispersion.

2nd scenario if the car tilted and roll, the engine detached but the opening will allow the car rolling leaving the engine with reduced momentum and quite substantial energy going forward. again kinetic energy dispersion and reduced momentum since we have mass reduced from the body.

iinm the one one that slows down the collision is the chassis(crumple zone) itself, not the engine,

beside, the engine only held by couple of bolts. if anything, it wont absorb any impact, it only be a battering ram entering the cabin of the car.

If the engine stay with the car, the momentum from the engine will crash ur leg and end up in ur lap. it willl also change the the vector of your car and make it more uncontrollable

Seriously, did u take physic or this is just ur assumption?

How can u compare collusion at 80km/h with 160km/h?

plus, that car guling2 summore.. if the side body is not that rigid, memang GG.

this. 

why ar188 keep defending the engine must be attached with the car or underneath? the car would hv rolled.

yup engine should stay in car but not in engine bay..
wrong,engine does not slow the collision..car frame that slowing and absorb the collision force.

Can what.

Instead of one big block as the engine it can be made up of 30 different parts.
Upon impact the sensor triggers small explosives at the joints.
The internal explosion counter acts with the external impact and helps to neutralise the damage.

Any part flying off a car during an accident, which can be many parts, is a potential hazard to passerbys. What are you gonna do, complain that a bumper should not fly off during an accident and demand that NCAP make that into a guideline?

ar188 You seem to focus on the fact that the engine should not leave the car, which I agree. If the Preve did not rollover, the engine might've probably stayed with the car. On the other hand, when Volvo says that the engine will slide under the car, it did not address the possibility of a rollover. Can you vouch for Volvo that their engine will still be attached to the car when the flips? considering the main mounting points are gone and all that holds the engine to the car is the transmission or the exhaust pipe.

In lab test / ANCAP test, it is perfect front collision, so the engine just drop under the car.

But in actual accident, when the engine is dropped, they are many possibility happen. Good thing is after the engine is dropped, the momentum will be reduced. And will also create a longer crumble zone to reduce the impact on the passenger in the car.

I am not sure if Preve is designed for this, but without doubt, this is something good.

yup its accident anything can happen dont blame manufacture when u drive at 160km and die or kill someone..

maybe the design is to save u first not the others 

your accident is definite but behind you will be either there is a car or no car. and when the engine drops first impact already slow it down plus the momentum is still up front. friction with the road will be the 2nd force against, so anyone who unluckly ram it from behind will face a reduced momentum engine which the movement can be diverted on impact.

SO u want to market a car that people in the car will be in trouble but outside people will be safe???

This is the fact, till now, most of the cars in the market are designed in that way, protect the buyer first, other.... at least maybe not at this moment.

Next time is to control the direction, speed and trajectory of the flight path

You'll be amaze if you know all the UNECE requirement can be sometimes ridiculous and troublesome.  Most cars sold in malayisa barely meeting UNECE regulations, but Proton current models and future models are trying to meet all the regulations for malaysian and global market.

Meeting regulations is not an excuse.  It is a perfect business sense as you said, to have all same spec from one production line up. You have to choose to meet global regulations or keep producing non-global cars and sell to local market only.  This is not an excuse, but a must.  Unlike Perodua, they are just barely meeting the minimum regulations for local market, because they don't have to worry about export market.

In this case, japanese just meet the minumum JPJ approved ECE spec. But some even don't. Also want to exempt further. 
Proton is targeting Europe homologation, so what is stupid about that? 

My Car made in Japan and only have 2 airbag... does not even meet Euro NCAP requirement to have 6 airbag... so you are right... car made to cater to each country requirement (not regulation) if he buyer DEMAND safety they will cater to the market... else their car wont sell thats simple... why we buy car with no airbag cause we dont care...

not stupid but good... it is actually good... but this spec do made to cater for Malaysian market as well example bigger radiator cause hot climate...

but the safety is on par with EURO NCAP which is great!!! finally they did something right!!!

Malaysian must demand for more safety else car manufacturer will take you for a ride... good case UMW Toyota... i mean look at their safety feature... kinda idiot ppl only will buy