[Los Santos Pedestrian]

In the USA, homemade cars have had a reputation for being a lot less safe than ones from Japan or Europe. That was the case until about 2000-2005. Here's some of my top picks for cars to avoid:

1996-2005 Chevrolet Astro
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=66&seriesid=282

1997-2005 Pontiac Trans Sport/Chevrolet Venture/Oldsmobile Silhouette
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=67&seriesid=492

1997-2003 Ford F-150
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=7&seriesid=327

1995-99 Dodge/Plymouth Neon
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=84&seriesid=382

But here's a car that's not American and not safe - the 1996-97 Isuzu Rodeo/Honda Passport
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=56&seriesid=498

1996-2001 Oldsmobile Bravada
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=54&seriesid=499

That's all for now. Share some you'd never want to step in. Include modern cars if you can.

[*MURDOC*]

Kia Sephia.

It's a damn decapitation station.

[Pat]

Going to go with the early Fieros. I mean, I guess they're pretty safe if you consider being charbroiled in your car "safe."

[sivispacem]

Peugeot 106/Citroen Saxo. Utter death-traps



That's at 40mph.

[Lurch]

I'd take a guess that every car in the first post is still safer than most any car made before 1975.

[4 Bagger]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Nov 17 2011, 23:01)

Peugeot 106/Citroen Saxo. Utter death-traps

I was just about to post the Citroen Saxo. Cars such as the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Corvair are unsafe. I should imagine the Smartcar being unsafe too.

[EverLost123]

Small cars are the less safe ones, if you see at Mustang Convertible , with his big front motor , you can see that if you hit a wall over 60 MPH you will not suffer so much damage then a small low price car with a inexistent front.

[Garfield 2]

QUOTE (EverLost123 @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 01:10)

Small cars are the less safe ones, if you see at Mustang Convertible , with his big front motor , you can see that if you hit a wall over 60 MPH you will not suffer so much damage then a small low price car with a inexistent front.

IIHS does the tests at 40mph, not 60.

[EverLost123]

Yeah , but i mean , if with 40 MPH they are extremely safe , in 60 MPH there is no much difference.

[Piperka]

Check this out, early 1980's Holden Commodore 100km/h

[leik oh em jeez!]

Looks like an accordion on wheels. I'm pretty sure my 3/4 ton Suburban is a lot safer, but hopefully I'll never have to find out.

[Los Santos Pedestrian]

QUOTE (4 Bagger @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 00:13)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Nov 17 2011, 23:01) Peugeot 106/Citroen Saxo. Utter death-traps I was just about to post the Citroen Saxo. Cars such as the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Corvair are unsafe. I should imagine the Smartcar being unsafe too.

The Smart car is probably safer than the conventional SUV.

[leik oh em jeez!]

No matter how well it holds its shape, I just can't see there being enough space between the front of the car and the driver to absorb the impact. Even if it doesn't turn the car inside out and crush the driver, all of that force of the stop is still being transferred to passengers. You can see can the difference there with the test against the Ford Fusion. Notice the Fusion's rate of deceleration was lower, the car absorbed the impact. Whereas the Smart stopped very suddenly, with enough force on the car at once to snap the mirrors off. Imagine your head acting the same way as the mirrors on each car, I'd MUCH rather be in the Fusion.

[chris]

That 80's Holden is f*cking terrifying.

Here's a quote from the people who tested my Escort.

QUOTE

Very severe head contact with the steering wheel may cause severe head trauma or fatal injuries. The legs also receive injuries because of the severity of the crash, but are not life threatening. During impact, a fire started in the engine compartment, if a person is not able to get out or the fire isn't controlled quickly, the driver could be trapped and burn. Series One tests (Without airbags) 50% offset, 56 Km/h

Thank god i don't exceed 56km/h very often, oh wait.

[-Bruce-]

QUOTE (Los Santos Pedestrian @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 04:05)

QUOTE (4 Bagger @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 00:13) QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Nov 17 2011, 23:01) Peugeot 106/Citroen Saxo. Utter death-traps I was just about to post the Citroen Saxo. Cars such as the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Corvair are unsafe. I should imagine the Smartcar being unsafe too. The Smart car is probably safer than the conventional SUV. (video)

Well, the smaller cars are i guess more packed together, and furthermore are more safe. Bigger cars may have more structual beams and stuff but may be more dangerous. There is more room between parts in bigger cars and so it compresses more. Then again, that compression would take all the energy of the crash. So...i don't know

[Garfield 2]

QUOTE (EverLost123 @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 01:28)

Yeah , but i mean , if with 40 MPH they are extremely safe , in 60 MPH there is no much difference.

You'd be surprised.
Force = Mass x Acceleration

Let's say this car weighs 1500 kg and accelerates at 17.8 m /sec (40mph)

Force = 26700 N

At 60 mph

1500 x 26.8 (60mph) = 40200 N

It's a 13500 N difference.

[zyonig]

I dont fancy travelling in a Ford Pinto. Its tiny, and has really bad suspension and brakes (drum). Not only that, but there was famously (infamously?) a design flaw in the fuel tank that Ford was aware of. Rear end collisions could result in fuel tank punctures and very bad car fires. So it is bad to drive and really bad if someone crashes into it.

[leik oh em jeez!]

QUOTE (-Bruce- @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 08:00)

QUOTE (Los Santos Pedestrian @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 04:05) QUOTE (4 Bagger @ Saturday, Nov 19 2011, 00:13) QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Nov 17 2011, 23:01) Peugeot 106/Citroen Saxo. Utter death-traps I was just about to post the Citroen Saxo. Cars such as the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Corvair are unsafe. I should imagine the Smartcar being unsafe too. The Smart car is probably safer than the conventional SUV. (video) Well, the smaller cars are i guess more packed together, and furthermore are more safe. Bigger cars may have more structual beams and stuff but may be more dangerous. There is more room between parts in bigger cars and so it compresses more. Then again, that compression would take all the energy of the crash. So...i don't know

More compression is a good thing, until it gets to a passenger. The more it compresses, the more energy is absorbed by the vehicle, and less transferred to passengers. That's the point I was getting at with my last post. With a car that small, there's no room to compress. And if the car can't compress and absorb the energy, it all gets transferred to the passenger and the car does nothing to protect them. Just like falling, it's the sudden stop that does the damage. The more it compresses, the less sudden the stop is. Imagine jumping off of a roof onto a concrete sidewalk with an inch of mud on it, or one with three feet of mud. The more mud, the more it slows you down before you hit the concrete. Generally the same concept can be carried over to cars. There are more factors, especially the construction of the car; but in general, more cushion is better.

[Gundog]

When I pondered about my first car, I asked my father what he has to say. He said:

"It's better to have six feet of engine in front of you, than being six feet under"

That's why I'd never buy a sh*tty econobox, f*ck fuel consuption when you end up a crumpled, gory mess after a crash. Unless it's a Smart. Smart cars are rollcages on wheels. Small as a matchbox, sturdy as a tank.

[*MURDOC*]

There are quite a few compacts that are very good in crashes so I really don't know what you're on about.


There are also plenty of large cars that are wholly unsafe.

"Six feet of engine in front of you is nice, but it's a different story when that six feet of engine is in your lap, pinning you inside the burning wreckage that used to be your car."