[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:02:02
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
How realistic are these crash tests anyway? It seems that a solid vehicle will do well with or without meeting the actual test. I can’t imagine that all the gold vehicles would perform at the same level in real life. These tests also don’t value accidence avoidance, such as better brakes, headlights, ergonomics, etc. Would a Ford Five Hundred beat a 9-5 in a real world crash?
How can the Mercury Montego/Ford Five Hundred receive a good rear end rating when the neck forces are much higher than the 9-5s which gets an average (What changed that it says 9-5 seats after 9/04 on some of the data pages?). The G forces are lower in the Ford twins, but then the 9-3s are higher than the 9-3s. Somehow I always find the crash pictures tell a lot and that the ratings are just so so. Ask yourself can you see yourself sitting in that crashed vehicle.
Also whiplash, while unpleasant is survivable. A 50+ mph spin where the vehicle slams rear end first at an angle into an overpass abutment is where the life saving cars shine. I suppose one could always design for a crash test. The car could have designed in compromise and weakness in a real crash.
Oh well, safety sells. Saab has at least one thing going for it. I like the double best pick stickers I see on the 9-3 at my dealership. Next 9-5 should be even better. Sharing the limelight with VW/Audi isn’t bad for a small marquee like Saab.
posted by 69.113.12...
http://www.hwysafety.org/ratings/head_restraints/details_page.html#tested
, Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:02:02, Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:51:08
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
