Crash Test - Old Vs New

-Chris-

This is a crash marking 50 years since the founding of the IIHS, and I think it's a remarkable demonstration of the progress made in vehicle safety.

As much as I'd rather own a '57 Bel Air than a Chevy Malibu, I'd much rather crash in the Malibu based on this...

Scary!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

Guy:Incognito

Some companies havent come on at all.

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/chrysler/voyager.aspx

peasant

That '59 looked mint ...I'd have happily taken it off their hands, no need to kill it :mad:

BrianD3

Would be interesting to see what would have happened had they carried out the same test but using an 89 Chevy instead of a 59. An 89 would have fared somewhat better than the 59 but would still be destroyed and the driver almost certainly killed.

The IIHS may be around for 50 years but they only started conducting offset crash tests in 1995 with EuroNCAP starting a year of two later. The introduction of these testing programmes has resulted in dramatic improvement in car safety in a relatively short timeframe of around 10 years. Yet there are still plenty of people out there who think you'd be better off in an old Volvo eg a 1970s Volvo 240.

colm_mcm

50 years, what did they expect?

high horse

I remember on Fifth Gear they crashed a new Renault Espace into a 10 year old Renault Espace and the old one came out pretty bad! Cant find the video on youtube...

Edit: found it!

http://www.vidoemo.com/yvideo.php?i=dXZvdW1UcWuRpb1NQNWM&hd-renault-espace-vs-old-renault-espace-crash-test

mullingar

Stekelly wrote: »

Some companies havent come on at all.

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/chrysler/voyager.aspx

FFS!!! 1.5 stars!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

I wonder how many people know this rating when they get into one, I for one will sooner walk!

R.O.R

mullingar wrote: »

FFS!!! 1.5 stars!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

I wonder how many people know this rating when they get into one, I for one will sooner walk!

I do, and have pointed this out to people whenever they enquired about the Voyager for carrying their kids around in. Consequently, I've never ordered a Chrysler Voyager!

Mr Benevolent

Interesting that they use a 50% rather than 40% offset.

mullingar

As I could not get over its poor rating, a quick bit of googling found the AA site:

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ncap/ncap_car_results.jsp?make=Chrysler&modelYear=Grand%20Voyager:2001&publicationDate=2007-01-01

The Grand Voyager scored enough points overall to be awarded a three-star adult occupant rating. However, its peformance in the frontal impact did not meet the minimum level for that rating and the car was awarded two stars. The driver's chest struck the steering wheel and distorted its rim and the chest compression measured by the dummy indicated an unacceptably high risk of serious or fatal injury. As a result, the final star in the adult occupant rating is struck-through. Several structures in the dashboard presented a potential hazard to the driver's knees; the dummy recorded high femur compressions and the protection offered to this body region was rated as poor. The passenger compartment became unstable during the test. The footwell ruptured during the impact and rearward movement of the accelerator pedal was 288mm which, combined with dummy readings indicating a high risk to the tibia resulted in a 'poor' rating for protection of the lower legs, feet and ankles. In the pole test the curtain airbag didn't deploy as intended, becoming trapped between the dummy's head and the B-pillar. The car scoreed no points and was awarded no stars for the protection it offers to pedestrians.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Guy:Incognito

mullingar wrote: »

As I could not get over its poor rating, a quick bit of googling found the AA site:

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/ncap/ncap_car_results.jsp?make=Chrysler&modelYear=Grand%20Voyager:2001&publicationDate=2007-01-01





:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

It's an equal opportunities killer whether your inside or outside the car.:)