Smart Car of America Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
28,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The next time someone is giving you the "death trap" speech, you might mention this to them:

(Reuters) - Most of the midsize SUVs did not fare well in a new small overlap front-crash test conducted by an influential U.S. safety group, in yet another jolt to the industry already shaken by safety concerns.

Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain from the General Motors Co were the only vehicles to earn the highest rating of "good" in the test, according to results released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) on Tuesday.

Out of the nine participating models, Toyota Motor Corp's Highlander was rated "acceptable" while rest of the group earned "marginal" or "poor" ratings.

The worst performers in the test were Mazda Motor Corp's CX-9 and Honda Motor Co's Pilot, which sustained "significant structural collapse," IIHS said.
:)

Most midsize SUVs fail tough U.S. crash tests
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,295 Posts
I never want to see anybody get hurt in a car accident. I certainly hope everybody gets to go home to their loved ones at the end of the day, but I have to take issue with a couple of things from this article.

We all know that all auto makers have stepped up their game when it comes to safety in a vehicle. In the last dozen years, all vehicle have become much safer. However, this creates an issue for the IIHS. If all cars are safer, and pass their testing, what is the point of the testing?

I like how the author talks about tougher US standards. These are not US standards, they are tests conducted by the IIHS. They have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They have to justify their existance by developing even tougher test to prove how much "we the people" need them.... Don't get me wrong, if we don't improve, we die, but come on, really? Let's develope a test that purposely involves the weakest part of a vehicle(the outer sheet metal), and then cry out that we need tougher standards. You can't make everything bullet proof. Next they will want all the manufactures making body panels out of 1/4" steel plate.... That won't crush in an accident will it? Of course the car will weigh 4 tons, and get 5 mpg, but it's all about safety right?:wink:

There has to be a balance. The government is pushing for higher CAFE standards, and the IIHS wants the cars safer. The auto manufactures are trying to do a balancing act between the two.

Here is a good real world example: My smart is just over 8' long, and weighs 1800 lb. My other vehicle, a 1983 Plymouth Scamp pickup, which was considered an economy small vehicle when it was made, is just under 16' long, and weights 2300 lb. Now I have twice the vehicle, but only 27% more weight. What does that tell you? It's all done in the interest of safety. I think there comes a point where enough is enough.

I lost all faith in the IIHS when they first posted their comments about the smart. It passed all their tests, but they still called it dangerous.

Let them test away... I'll keep driving my smart, and whatever other vehicles I want. Regardless of what their tests supposedly "prove".:|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,020 Posts
I see them proving that there is work that needs to be done to make cars safer than they are today. Our cars get engineered to do well in the standards testing. People are dying in offset crashes like these new tests. Why would progress be a bad thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
There's a lot of deception in car buying. The salesman is trying to push buyers into the higher priced models because there's a bigger commission for him. One of the tricks is to imply "increased safety"; however size is NOT the only thing that impacts safety. How the car is made and what safety equipment impacts the end result.

Now if ALL cars were built for maximum safety like the smart fortwo, bigger would be safer, but they're not.


Bob Diaz
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top