. . .
Vauxhall/Opels are on a par with other German cars with regard to structural strength (unlike Fords!), and usually get 5 stars in EuroNCAP crash tests.
Interesting to see you don't rate the body integrity of Henry's finest?
From someone that works in body Construction in a Ford derived plant that uses Ford designed Underbodies (and a multitude of other BIW parts) as bases for its product, I can tell you that this comment confuses me somewhat!
Are you talking about products of old?
Nope. Even the latest Fords are no match for Vauxhall/Opel, Renault, VW, and the likes. Ford never quite cut in EuroNCAP tests. OK, they may sometimes hit 5 stars, but the devil is in the detail.
And how may Fords use continuous seam or butt laser welding - none. They still use 1960s spot welding technology.
What about full three-section sills - the most crucial part of the structure. For still don't use a full three section, yet Vauxhall, VW and Audi use four section, and some parts are 5-section sills.
Bottom line though is to ask any "established" Police accident investigator - and Fords will always be at the bottom of their own transport requirements. 
Even Volvos are not the "tanks" they once were, before Ford got their grubby mitts on ownership of that well-known "tough" brand.
So the 1300 odd spot welds used on the mk 5 Golf are not counted or invisible then?
Spot (resistance) welding has been around a lot longer than the 60's and most manufacturers still use them, including the ones mentioned in your above post.
But that isnt the issue. The simple fact is that Ford have not moved on, and complimented spot welding with the far more advanced, stronger, and accurate method of laser welding. And it is the strength of the laser welding which has massive advantages in the overall structural strength of the monocoque. What about when Malcolm Wilsons rally company gets the Focus body shells - they then have to re-weld every spot weld with a seam welder. Spot welding may be "OK", but it has limitations, and the Volkswagen Group manufacturing plants have made a positive step in structural strength with laser welding in critical areas.
I could post up various links to videos of spot welders in current action at various car plants across the world.
I don't doubt you. And I would also expect to see dub factories too. But how many other manufacturers will have vids of continuous laser welds?
Re: Laser welding, this is used to some degree on long runs that are easily accessible for the robot heads for instance the roof seams, and does away with the need to seal up the joints with Terostat or the like afterwards due to the 100% integrity.
Laser welding is also used to save wastage on sheet metal , for example the door skin inners in the plant where I work are made in 2 pieces and joined with laser welding, wheras otherwise there would be a lot of wasted raw material if they were pressed out in one piece.
Agreed. But two simple issues. It is a proven fact that continous laser welding is far stronger than spot welding. And why don't Ford use lasers on the roof seams? Their monocoque construction designs are no different to a dub?
The simple answer is that spot welding is hugely cheaper than laser welding - and Ford are widely known, within the industry, to be the most agressive at "penny pinching" in their manufacturing processes.
Of course Aluminium shells still have to be laser welded (or increasingly bonded) as spot welding doesn't work.
Chalk and cheese though. Volkswagen nor Ford make aluminium cars.
But Audi and Vauxhall do. (Well Vauxhall used to in their VX200
).
I work closely with a guy at work who is an ABB employee, he is a seasoned traveller to BIW plants around the world, and guess what he is a specialist in? yep ABB resistance welding robots.
And . . . ?
The strength of a bodyshell is not totally reliant on the sill section anymore, any modern floorpan will have reinforcing running lengthways along the x axis, (usually the underbody and door opening panel - DOP) and tied up with specific re-inforcing panels to spread the load of any impact (deformation) as you know cars are designed to absorb impact and spread the force of throughout the body, so multi-skinned sill sections, although once necessary, aren't used to such an extent anymore. Manufacturers do things in different ways thats all!
Erm, the sill section is still a massive part of the overall structural rigidity of a monocoque. And the monocoque is not really designed to be the primary component of deformation at all. Of course the sill isn't the only structural component, but for the actual "survival cell" of the passenger compartment, in frontal and rear impacts, the sill strength is
the deciding factor. Of course there are the "crumple zones", which generally include everything infront of the firewall and "A" pillar, and the best designs will not only dissipate collision energy in the actual crumple zones, but also along the roof too - thus fully protecting the sill as the primary structural component. There is a crucial reason why the sill is, or should be the stongest part - because it forms part of the floor pan - and it is to the floor pan which all the occupant supporting structures are bolted to.
Anyway, I was gonna post a link to a similar discussion on another forum, but the lieing little tw@t who owns it has let it crash yet again! Anyone have any ideas on how to link or post "mht" documents?
