|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 655
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 655 |
I don't think you got my point. My point was that just because a vehicle holds up in one type of accident, doesn't mean it is safe. I.E., just because you can roll a Contour and not get injured doesn't mean you wouldn't get killed in a 30 mph head on with a Grand Marquis. My friend who was T-boned was T-boned by an Escort and recieved serious injuries for what should have been a minor collision. The people I knew who damaged their cars beyond identification were barely injured, and they were all involved in head on collisions. A Cavalier may protect decently in a frontal impact, but it does not protect in a side impact very well. Just as a Fusion may protect well in a frontal crash but protect very poorly in a side impact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
The iihs test methodology is shaky at best. First, they design a side test with an overly high impact point and an overly short driver. They purposely design the test to need side air bags to do well, then refuse to test a car with them if they are optional.
The rear test is a complete joke. They put a set on a sled, completely negating the ability of the car itself to disperse crash forces.
They downgraded a great frontal performance because you might break your ankle... whoopee.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 655
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 655 |
I actually agree and have agreed ever since I saw my first IIHS test that their side impact tests are flawed. They don't reflect real world conditions. Also, think who they are working for: INSURANCE. It is in their best interest to find cars to be unsafe because then the insurance companies can charge more for your insurance since you are more likely to get hurt.
Congress should mandate that insurance companies use NHTSA tests, which are more like real world conditions and are unbiased, when they determine the safety level and thus the premiums on car insurance. BTW, NHTSA test for the Fusion came out as a 4 star front for driver and passenger and 4 star side for front and rear. The Fusion got 5 stars front side impact with the side airbags.
Last edited by red99sesport; 03/07/06 02:38 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,143 |
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
The iihs test methodology is shaky at best. First, they design a side test with an overly high impact point and an overly short driver. They purposely design the test to need side air bags to do well, then refuse to test a car with them if they are optional.
The rear test is a complete joke. They put a set on a sled, completely negating the ability of the car itself to disperse crash forces.
They downgraded a great frontal performance because you might break your ankle... whoopee.
I disagree with some of what you are saying.
I think the idea of the short driver high impact is that it is pretty much a worse case scenario for head injuries in a side impact. It is also a good idea to note that the high impact isn't uncommon, look at what some of the best selling vehicles are in this country, heck #1 and #2 are both full size pickups, which that test tries to simulate.
As far as the broken ankle thing, I believe with the airbags, seatbelts, whiplash protection and whatnot we have today that it is the most common injury in front impacts.
I don't see this really impacting sales that much though, I mean the fivehundred/montego got gold awards and the sales on those things have been slow. I don't think Americans really care about safety that much.
"Bros before Hoes" <-- More men need this mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
Originally posted by Yankees25:
I just think that for the pricepoint, if you don't opt to buy optional side-curtain airbags, it's on you, the consumer.
That's an interesting point. With the theoretical stripped Fusion starting at something like $17K, it's almost in a totally different segment than a loaded $21-22K version. We might see manufacturers dropping the price leader versions of these cars due to these tests 
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Rolling a car is one thing. Hitting a concrete pole or getting t-boned by an SUV is something else entirely.
Ask WRX Barge about sliding sideways into a telephone pole about 35 mph.  I think he faired pretty well. I know we can't compare a Contour to a Fusion but no way you can tell me that a Fusion can be any worse.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Pete D:
I don't think Americans really care about safety that much.
It's not something I look at buying a car. That's just me. As stated before safety is pretty darn good in todays car market.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Rolling a car is one thing. Hitting a concrete pole or getting t-boned by an SUV is something else entirely.
Or a telephone pole...
Broken rib and a concussion.. better than death :-P
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281
Captain Impound Boy
|
|
Captain Impound Boy
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281 |
I can see the TwEECer 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
The iihs test methodology is shaky at best. First, they design a side test with an overly high impact point and an overly short driver. They purposely design the test to need side air bags to do well, then refuse to test a car with them if they are optional.
The rear test is a complete joke. They put a set on a sled, completely negating the ability of the car itself to disperse crash forces.
They downgraded a great frontal performance because you might break your ankle... whoopee.
"the Fusion's score resulted from damage to a test dummy's ankle during the Fusion's crash test, and that Ford had not been able to repeat the results."
Seems like a fluke. I wouldn't be concerned about buying a Fusion. Get into a front end crash driving an S-10 and you may be lucky to keep your legs.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
