Super-Crumple-Zones!

[Sixty8panther]

Funny stuff...

http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpea...good_itl_1.html

[aaaantoine]

And these cars are coming to America!?

[Sixty8panther]

Not any time soon... even if they manage to pull of dealership networks

if their cars are that horrible in crahs tests they CAN NOT sell them in

the USA. We have the most stringent safety standards in the world.

Nissan still made 4-door hardtops in the mid-1980s for sale in Australia

& Japan.... not that there's anything wrong with that technically but they

did not even make a very ridgid B-post, it was the same unibody tin-can

that my Datsun Maxima is based on.

Safety considerations are still at or below USA's 1950s levels in many

parts of the world, in some ways worse because they think airbags will

make up for $h!ty design.

[NDL]

Thanks for the needed laugh!

(Kinda scary actually...)

[Robert Hall]

Funny stuff...

http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpea...good_itl_1.html

Yeah, but remember GM used to make collapsable junk like that also...as recently as the Astro and Blazer...

[RBB]

-RBB

[balthazar]

Yeah, but remember GM used to make collapsable junk like that also...as recently as the Astro and Blazer...

Whaa- the Astro & Blazer's dashes detached & ripped the front passenger's heads off, yet still passed federal regs and made it to production?? Really??

>>"when the dashboard flies through the interior of the car to the back seat, it does so at face height "<<

[the_yellow_dart]

Yeah... ummm... deja-vu man

Wook at my wecked Bwazer...

or maybe this?

These are products GM was selling in... what? 2000?

So the Chinese are 7 years behind GM now. The Japanese were a lot further behind than that when they entered the US market...

Edited February 10, 2007 by the_yellow_dart

[pow]

Whaa- the Astro & Blazer's dashes detached & ripped the front passenger's heads off, yet still passed federal regs and made it to production?? Really??

>>"when the dashboard flies through the interior of the car to the back seat, it does so at face height "<<

2005 Chevrolet Astro

2005 Chevrolet Blazer

2005 Chevrolet Venture

"Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)."

edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack.

Edited February 10, 2007 by empowah

[balthazar]

Well, that's pretty damned bad. I guess the 'dash rips off and slams into passenger's head' was hyperbole, not fact.

Still, I've had more than enough evidence with all sorts of chinese-manufactured goods to vow to never buy anything as complicated as a vehicle, nevermind something with moving parts.

[GXT]

These are products GM was selling in... what? 2000?

So the Chinese are 7 years behind GM now. The Japanese were a lot further behind than that when they entered the US market...

The Venture and derivatives were sold from 97 until 2005. So I guess they are 2 years or 10 years behind depending on how you look at it.

Honda is now probably one generation ahead of GM.

[Robert Hall]

2005 Chevrolet Astro

2005 Chevrolet Blazer

2005 Chevrolet Venture

"Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)."

edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack.

Yes, unsafe at any speed... I'm surprised GM got away with building such subpar junk...I'm surprised Nader didn't jump all over this..

[Sixty8panther]

I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone.

It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are

very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad

accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up

way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick

to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design,

I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying

the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones.

IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try

to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the

No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still

killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys.

[Flybrian]

Yes, unsafe at any speed... I'm surprised GM got away with building such subpar junk...I'm surprised Nader didn't jump all over this..

Nader is too busy trying to be someone again.

[Cory Wolfe]

I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone.

It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are

very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad

accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up

way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick

to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design,

I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying

the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones.

IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try

to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the

No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still

killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys.

Or they're just absolute junk. Having too much planned crumple zone shouldn't cause those vehicles to turn into vehicular tin cans like that.

[Intrepidation]

Man, the engine isn't even in the bay anymore...it's in the driver's lap! Not a bad looking SUV per say, but my god I'd never wanna be in any &#036;h&#33;box from China (or the above mentioned GM vehicles)

This is what it should look like:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/390986/volvo..._very_safe_car/

Edited February 12, 2007 by Dodgefan

[JT64]

Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up.

They are behind because their government crash test program just started.

It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built.

Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.)

In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this.

Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car.

So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving.

Edited February 12, 2007 by JT64

[prototype66]

2005 Chevrolet Astro

2005 Chevrolet Blazer

2005 Chevrolet Venture

"Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)."

edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack.

Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture! Edited February 12, 2007 by prototype66

[aaaantoine]

Go figure... My dad has a 97 Astro, and my mother-in-law has a 97 Venture.

I knew about the Venture and the Blazer. I didn't realize the Astro had the same problem. I'm guessing the S-10 also horribly fails the crash test.

Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture!

It's a 2005 model and it says Trans Sport on the side?

[Intrepidation]

Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up.

They are behind because their government crash test program just started.

It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built.

Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.)

In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this.

Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car.

So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving.

My car....2000

Not not nearly as bad as any of those vehicles posted.

[Intrepidation]

Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up.

They are behind because their government crash test program just started.

It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built.

Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.)

In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this.

Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car.

So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving.

My car....2000 model year.

Not not nearly as bad as any of those vehicles posted. Of course the Charger is much better, but this is at least survivable.

Edited February 12, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Drew Dowdell]

I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone.

It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are

very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad

accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up

way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick

to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design,

I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying

the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones.

IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try

to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the

No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still

killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys.

Astro and Blazer aren't BOF?

[Sixty8panther]

Here's waht it comes down to:

Every few years, in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and now the 2000s we hear how

everything OLD is junk and everything new is PERFECT. it's a consumerist

mentality... junk your old crap buy new crap. Ther truth is that vehicles have

NOT been getting consistantly and progressively safer & better, if you honestly

think a 1970 vega is safer than a 1957 Bel Air in most circumstances than you

are just blind, same goes for a lot of other cars, how about a 1960 Ford versus

a 1970 Pinto... let's not even GO there, right?

If the car indusctry really was revolutionizing & reinventing automotive safety

every year and things were getting BETTER consistantly at the rate they claim

there would be almost no chance of getting killed in a car slamming inot a brick

wall at 90mph if you had your seatbelt on, which we all know is NOT the case.

I mean seriously ever heard of the annoalogy of a grain of rice on a

checkerboard? it's like that, if you increase something EXPENENTIALLY every

few years pretty soon you're looking at some earth-shattering improvement.

90% of this crap in marketing 101 and Federal Regulation B.S. These cars are

designed for THIS particular crash test... in the real world I'm sure that there

are scenarios where a 1997 Astro will do much better than a 2008 Enclave.

It's all about compromise, either you want HARD or SOFT, you can't have both!

[Hudson]

Is there a reason why a two-year old (?) crash test of a Land Wind is still making news? Hasnt' this been posted on a few dozen sites for quite some time now?

Yes, the Chinese are a bit behind the Japanese, Koreans, Americans, and Europeans...but they're also moving quicker than any of the aforementioned. I expect the Chinese vehicles to be four- or five-star vehicles in just a few years. And I never expected the Land Wind (nee 1992 Isuzu Rodeo) to make it to the US market anyway.

[Sixty8panther]

Astro and Blazer aren't BOF?

Of course they are you clown, but they're from an era when the public and

some stupid fedeal regualtion comitee decided that SOFT, crumple-prone

design (in frame or BODY) will be the solution tom all man's problems.

YOU CAN NOT DESIGN A CAR TO BE THE SAFEST IN ALL

CATEGORIES OF CRASHES, ALL THE TIME, IN ANY AND

EVERY SCENARIO AT ANY AND EVERY SPEED!

Obviously these vehicles suck, but to blame BOF for their poor design

would be like me saying Unibody suck and using this as evidence:

(this generation of '84 Mopar Minivans was not redesigned untill the mid 90s)

yes, that's right Bitches... that's a VOLVO! :AH-HA_wink:

seems like a pretty realistic translation of an OFFSET car crash in the real world...

It's a 2dr Cavalier for those who can not tell. (1995-1999)

And if you are going to pick on BOF, as usual FORD is the lowest common denominator:

Notice that these modern, super-safe cars (new C-class Benz) have waht are

essentially HUGE boxed frames upfront, albeit fused to the rest of the body &

structure... much closer to the idea of BOF verssu the traditional unibody box

with a few hard-points for suspension etc...

[Cory Wolfe]

Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up.

They are behind because their government crash test program just started.

It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built.

Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.)

In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this.

Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car.

So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving.

You mean the IIHS. The goverment test NHTSA isn't nearly as strict and most cars come away with 4 or 5 star ratings anyways. Those pics posted of those GM vehicles were from the IIHS. They don't look nearly as bad in the NHTSA's tests.

My 1995 Millenia for the same test:

[FAPTurbo]

Why do I have the urge to take all these pictures and videos of all these crash tests, and mash them together along with the song 'Yakkety Sax' ?

[enzl]

Here's waht it comes down to:

Every few years, in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and now the 2000s we hear how

everything OLD is junk and everything new is PERFECT. it's a consumerist

mentality... junk your old crap buy new crap. Ther truth is that vehicles have

NOT been getting consistantly and progressively safer & better, if you honestly

think a 1970 vega is safer than a 1957 Bel Air in most circumstances than you

are just blind, same goes for a lot of other cars, how about a 1960 Ford versus

a 1970 Pinto... let's not even GO there, right?

If the car indusctry really was revolutionizing & reinventing automotive safety

every year and things were getting BETTER consistantly at the rate they claim

there would be almost no chance of getting killed in a car slamming inot a brick

wall at 90mph if you had your seatbelt on, which we all know is NOT the case.

I mean seriously ever heard of the annoalogy of a grain of rice on a

checkerboard? it's like that, if you increase something EXPENENTIALLY every

few years pretty soon you're looking at some earth-shattering improvement.

90% of this crap in marketing 101 and Federal Regulation B.S. These cars are

designed for THIS particular crash test... in the real world I'm sure that there

are scenarios where a 1997 Astro will do much better than a 2008 Enclave.

It's all about compromise, either you want HARD or SOFT, you can't have both!

Mieage totals are up and death rate (deaths/mi.) is down.

The advancements in safety tech (airbags, ABS, ESP et al) are some of the MOST successful uses of tech in a modern auto (see BMW's i-drive as a prime example of how not to use tech.)

I couldn't agree more that safety systems are no substitute for commmon sense at the wheel, but your premise is just wrong.

I'd rather have an accident in a New Kia than a older vehicle. You're certainly free to choose the latter...

[Flybrian]

I'd rather have an accident in a New Kia than a older vehicle. You're certainly free to choose the latter...

Me, too. There'd be one less Kia on the road.

...

ba-dum-cha!

[pow]

Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture!

The Venture's replacement, the Uplander, is quite a bit studier...

... although its side protection could still be better.

[-Camaro-]

Everything in china sucks! So much crap is made from china already. Everything I've had that has said, "Made in China" has fallen apart very quickly. From that alone I wouldn't trust their cars even if they did copy other countries.

[enzl]

Me, too. There'd be one less Kia on the road.

...

ba-dum-cha!

and true....

[Sixty8panther]

Let's not forget to bash Italian Cars in this thread.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Sixty8panther

[bowtie_dude]

Someone post pictures of the 2001 Cavalier crash tests so I can use it to convince my wife to let me buy a new car.

[the_yellow_dart]

Let's not forget to bash Italian Cars in this thread.

Forget the Chinese cars. That's the worst crash test I've ever seen.

[the_yellow_dart]

Someone post pictures of the 2001 Cavalier crash tests so I can use it to convince my wife to let me buy a new car.

Safety on the 2001s was unchanged since 1995, so here are some '95 pics.

tests

[Sixty8panther]

Last but not least.... here's a few French cars.

French cars are a joke in and of themselves

but here's some pics. just for $hits & giggles!

[Cory Wolfe]

How about a car that's on the market here right now...

[the_yellow_dart]

How about a car that's on the market here right now...

Good point. Ass.

[pow]

More recent Frenchie cars are rather safe. Wasn't the Renault Espace the first car tested to get a 5-star E-NCAP rating?

[Cory Wolfe]

Good point. Ass.

[Sixty8panther]

LOL that's a funny one... forgot about that.

I like French Bread, it's good stuff. Renault, not so much.