Date: 16 Jun 2004 07:35:10 -0700 From: do_not_spam_menospameja.com (do_not_spam_me) Subject: Re: Which one of these cars are the safest, and which one should I get?
hollywood_onealnospamo.com (The Diesel) wrote in message news:<e1df7c64.0406141248.21234724nospaming.google.com>... > I wish car manufacturers put roll bars in cars(made to protect > from roof collapse in a rollover and made in such a way as to > not hurt the driver or passengers in a side impact). They essentially have. > I wish car manufacturers would also use 4 point seat belts, > and have fire retardant fire shields around the fuel tank, > as well as internal fuel cell bladders like they have in > professional race cars. Are you willing to pay for all that, especially for the small additional margin of protection they would provide? U.S. cars have long been required to withstand rear impacts of 30 MPH without fuel leakage, and most can actually take > 40 MPH. > my budget is at the most $12,000. > 2001/2002 Honda Civic Coupe with Side Air Bags > 1999/2000 Volvo S80 > 2003 Toyota Matrix with Side Air Bags > 2003 Pontiac Vibe with Side Air Bags Forget the Volvo; Volvo's reputation for crash safety is overblown, and the cars aren't that reliable and parts are expensive. GM has said that about 95% of a car's safety is in its crash avoidance ability, but they also found that most people exploited only half of a vehicle's maneuverability (I have no idea how they defined "half"). The most important crash survival criteria is probably head injury (HIC, Head Impact Criteria, expressed on a points scale), but I don't know what comes next -- chest force, leg force, or side HIC. Side air bags can be a big help in side crashes. Experts disagree about whether offset or full frontal crash test results are more important, and a car can be designed to do badly in one test yet well in the other, but don't be impressed by the Insurance Institute's claim that their test is done at 40 MPH while the federal government's optional test is done at 35 MPH; the latter is into a solid barrier while the former is essentially into a parked car (actually honeycomb aluminum), making it more like a 20 MPH crash into a solid barrier. Notice that the doors windows of the Pontiac/Toyota are start several inches higher than normal, probably for improved side crash protection. Personally, I'd buy the Pontiac/Toyota because it's a 4-door hatchback with large cargo capacity, but gas mileage is significantly worse than that of its near twin, the Corolla sedan. > Also, VERY IMPORTANTLY a car has to have a CENTER fuel tank, and NOT a > rear fuel tank like a Town Car or Mustang or Pinto or Crown Victoria. Virtually every front wheel drive car will have a centered fuel tank, but that's not a guarantee of better safety because the tank can be surrounded by sharp edges or bolts. Be sure that any car you buy hasn't been in a major crash (anything where the chassis was bent, the seatbelt "replace" stickers came out, or an airbag deployed), and check for operation of the airbags through the indicator lamp on the dash (should come on and then turn off -- some dealers remove bulbs to cover up for airbag, ABS, or engine computer problems) because bags are often replaced with padding, either because of collision repair or theft. It's good that you're relying more on test results than unreliable anecdotes because every crash survivor credits his car, rightly or wrongly, rather than circumstance. On the other hand, it's not possible to evaluate the safety of cars with a high degree of accuracy.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |