The Thread for Crash Test Pics

[Cory Wolfe]

I'll never forget the reaction my mom had when I showed her all of these...








What's interesting is that my Grand Am got a 5 star rating for driver frontal. Never knew that. The newer GA only got 4. Ironic. I don't know what the Blazer got... but from the looks of it... I'd guess 2 stars. Jeeesh... I can't believe they even let Chevy sell those death traps. :blink: :D

[CSpec]

The Venture looks worse than the Blazer:

Edited October 12, 2005 by CSpec

[NOS2006]

CS.. Holy f***ing shit!

[Cory Wolfe]

Damn... and I thought the Blazer was bad... :o

[Cory Wolfe]

Grand Prix:



Aztek:


Silverado:



And just for the hell of it.. Honda Civic:


Hmm... it's rated at 4 stars for driver-side frontal while my GA is rated at 5.

[NOS2006]

I'd like to see what happens to a Model T.. or any old car for that matter.

[Mike The Canadian]

Am I safe?

[Cory Wolfe]

Compared to the people in my family who own Blazers or Ventures... Pretty much. :P

[Mike The Canadian]

Compared to the people in my family who own Blazers or Ventures... Pretty much. :P

[post="27896"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

lol the century was never bad anyway, it's rated the second best rating (not in starts but overall thingy)

I saw that a corolla got like 4 and 5 stars and was like wtf, when u see the crash test of the thing, the dummy is like smashed into the dashboard, and for the civic, the thing flys into the air for christs sake...how can that be good for the passenger...

[Mike The Canadian]

do they test these things with the engines and etc still inside

[rearden82]

I'd like to see what happens to a Model T.. or any old car for that matter.

[post="27884"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I found an old automotive engineering book that showed some crash test pics of 1950s cars.. They were scary. One showed a 50s car (A Ford or Chevy, I forget which) that hit a barrier at 30 mph. Every panel on the entire car was buckled. Even the rear panels had buckled enough to cause the trunk to pop open. :blink:

Another showed a head-on collision between two cars. From the outside it didn't look too horrible. Then it showed the inside of one of the cars--the steering wheel was touching the headliner!

Crash safety has come a very, very long way.

[bowtie_dude]

I found an old automotive engineering book that showed some crash test pics of 1950s cars.. They were scary. One showed a 50s car (A Ford or Chevy, I forget which) that hit a barrier at 30 mph. Every panel on the entire car was buckled. Even the rear panels had buckled enough to cause the trunk to pop open.  :blink:

Another showed a head-on collision between two cars. From the outside it didn't look too horrible. Then it showed the inside of one of the cars--the steering wheel was touching the headliner!

Crash safety has come a very, very long way.

[post="27913"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Sadly, driving skills have not.

[Flybrian]

Steering columns of the day were rigid, not energy-absorbing, so many times the driver would be violently impaled in a crash.

[daves87rs]

Steering columns of the day were rigid, not energy-absorbing, so many times the driver would be violently impaled in a crash.

[post="27929"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yep, not a good thing is you were the driver.. :(

[daves87rs]

Sadly, driving skills have not.

[post="27924"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So true.

[NOS2006]

How bout a 4th Gen Camaro? :)

[Flybrian]

Dude, BV, you forgot to post what happened right after those Fiero crash tests...

[sciguy_0504]

LMFAO! Mike, the cars are bought right off the lot and crashed. The first Blazer and Venture pictures are from the IIHS (www.highwaysafety.org), which crashes cars offset into a wall that "gives" (like another car) at 40MPH. The government's crash test crashes the car into a wall that "gives" head on at 35MPH, I think. The IIHS test is a lot tougher. Someone should post a picture of the Astro and last-gen F150. Edited October 13, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[Guest Josh]

4th Gen Camaro





Kinda hard to see but It got a 5 star for driver & passenger frontal and 3 star side rating for front and 4 star for rear passenger

[NOS2006]

Sweet. Thanks, Josh.

[Guest Josh]

2005 G6



Front: Driver & Passenger 5 star



Side: Front seat 3 star, rear seat 5 star.

[Guest Josh]

1998 Bonnie

Front Driver: 5 star. Front Passenger 3



Side: Front 3 Rear passenger 2

[Guest Josh]

1997 Pontiac Trans Sport





Check out the Toyota compared to the Trans Sport and we wonder why GM has the wrap today that they do.

[Guest Josh]

2005 Malibu Sedan


Front 5 star for both


Side 5 star for both

Damn safe vehicle!

[Guest Josh]

2005 Deville



Front 5 star driver & passenger



Side 5 star both front and rear

[Cory Wolfe]

Astro:


Um... these next are funny. :lol:





:D

[Satty]

Where are the side impact test pics for the Cavalier and Sunfire?

[Sixty8panther]

All these photos that are being posted are NOT apples to apples comparison. Obviously the diferent setups (factors) like speed, size/mass/shape/ of the wall or barrier and how much "give" is built into it will make for different results.

[Cory Wolfe]

Montana SV6... A definite improvement over the one posted above...



And the 04 GP...

[Sixty8panther]

2005 STS



2005 SRX



1974 Oldsmobile NinetyEight (Airbag equiped)



88-98 Chevy P/U wt1500

[pow]

You'd need a 15 star crash rating to survive this (pic: http://www.odyclub.com/forums/attachment.p...=&postid=204469)

It was driven by a man in his 60's who apparently doze off or took his eyes off the road. It was during the morning, but there was no fog. The big rig, which broke down, was parked on the rightmost lane.

This would have probably saved their lives: http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4030520a/index.html

[pow]

All these photos that are being posted are NOT apples to apples comparison.

Obviously the diferent setups (factors) like speed, size/mass/shape/ of the wall or barrier and how much "give" is built into it will make for different results.

[post="28030"][/post]

Yep... pretty much all cars look pretty decent in the government's frontal crash. The differences start to appear with the IIHS tests.

[Sixty8panther]

Geeezus, look at the buckling on the Astro in Empowah's post.

[NOS2006]

Geeezus, look at the buckling on the Astro in Empowah's post.

[post="28055"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Ohh yeah.. Looks like some fun right there :blink:

[Dsuupr]

Interesting to note that the Astro/Safari twins as well as the Silhouette/Venture/Montana triplets always where at the top for real life saftey scores. We picked the Cobalt for a reason; Best pick in the compact catagory.

[Sixty8panther]

If you have considered buying a Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz in the past for some unexplicable reson this is a good reason to not. Ever. I got one of these shitboxes for free for the demolition derby once but luckily junked it cause it did not seem to be runnig very well.



Some random European cars... look closely, MASS matters more than anything else. Pure Physics.



http://nmxs-images.forbesautos.com/streame...0523_03?WID=336

[Sixty8panther]

http://nmxs-images.forbesautos.com/streame...0523_03?WID=336

Cool Volvo stunt to show off the structural integrity of their models. (erly 1970s)

Edited October 13, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[Satty]

No, design matters more than mass. Design allows a driver to not take all the forces of the impact, design allows the driver to not be impaled by the steering wheel or thrown through the windshield. Mass helps the car itself, but it doesn't matter if your car is drivable after the accident if your head has been torn off and is twenty feet away from your body. In a head-on collision, I would much rather be in the least safe car from the 90's than in the safest car from the 50's, modern seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, non-stabbing steering columns, it isn't even close to being a tough choice.

[the_yellow_dart]

That's an awesome picture!!!

[Sixty8panther]

A car wiht a lot of mass like a S500 Benz (4500lbs) will have a lot more inertia and will crush/slow down less than the Civic 3dr (2800lbs) it hits. In the end the steering column will not move regardless of desing because if both cars are going 30mph it will seem like a 20mph accident to the Benz and a 40mph accident to the Civic. I don;t care how cushy, soft, energy absorbing a car is... if it folds into a ball like a Beer can then it's a safe bet you'll be dead anyway. Would you rather gat you head torn off by a steering wheel on a 1958 Bonneville or get crushed to death and your chest impaled by a Vtech motor in the newre Civic?

[Cory Wolfe]

Would you rather gat you head torn off by a steering wheel on a 1958 Bonneville or get crushed to death and your chest impaled by a Vtech motor in the newre Civic?

Or Blazer!



Oh... wait, it isn't unibody. Nevermind.

Let's see... get my head torn off and die -or- get crushed and die. Hmm... I can't live no matter what. So, why should I care? Great analogy, dumbass. :rolleyes: :P :D :lol:

Great point about mass, though. It's completely right... but design matters, too.

[pow]

Not just mass, but height and strength, too. For instance, the structure of an older SUV or light truck will override the structure of a normal car during a frontal impact. And structural integrity is important so that the passenger cell stays intact, regardness of mass.

For blackviper... :P







Even with ABS!

Edited October 13, 2005 by empowah

[Cory Wolfe]

Atleast you were able to post them... My PC being so shitty prevented me from even looking at those. It got a 'Poor' rating from the IIHS. 4 stars from the NHTSA. I still just find it ironic that my GA was scored higher... although, I don't think it's ever been tested by the IIHS. Which is absolutely brutal (especially to Trans Sports).

[pow]

Another example of height mismatch... whatever hit it went clean past the structural beams. Thankfully, it wasn't at a higher speed.

[ocnblu]

Empowah, look at your Cobalt pics again. The impact on the hood is only on the right side, see the finely crinkled sheetmetal and missing paint? The car hit a pole just outboard of the right frame rail and peeled everything back. The bumper impact bar is only damaged on the right end. This was not a height issue, the car hit something vertical. Edited October 14, 2005 by ocnblu

[pow]

Empowah, look at your Cobalt pics again.  The impact on the hood is only on the right side, see the finely crinkled sheetmetal and missing paint?  The car hit a pole just outboard of the right frame rail and peeled everything back.    The bumper impact bar is only damaged on the right end.  This was not a height issue, the car hit something vertical.

[post="28522"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whoooops... yeah, you're right. The front edges of the hood aren't creased or anything. But at least we can see (sort of...) how dangerous an SUV/truck with a higher frame rail can be to a lower car like the Cobalt.

[Guest Josh]

That's an awesome picture!!!

[post="28271"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree that picture is bad ass. Beautiful in it's own "twisted" sort of way. No pun intended...well maybe.

[the_yellow_dart]

A car wiht a lot of mass like a S500 Benz (4500lbs) will have a lot more inertia and will crush/slow down less than the Civic 3dr (2800lbs) it hits. In the end the steering column will not move regardless of desing because if both cars are going 30mph it will seem like a 20mph accident to the Benz and a 40mph accident to the Civic.

I don;t care how cushy, soft, energy absorbing a car is... if it folds into a ball like a Beer can then it's a safe bet you'll be dead anyway.

Would you rather gat you head torn off by a steering wheel on a 1958 Bonneville or get crushed to death and your chest impaled by a Vtech motor in the newre Civic?

[post="28273"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The problem with this statement, Sixty8, is that physics is almost entirely scalable. Let me explain what I mean with a little analogy.

Take 2 bowling balls. One is 6 inches across and weighs 10 pounds. The other is a foot across and weighs 20 pounds. Drop them both off a building. They will both fall at the same speed, since the bigger ball has more air resistance pushing up, but more weight pushing down. When they hit the ground (let's say we didn't drop them very far), the bigger one will shatter 2x as much as the small one, since it has 2x the kinetic energy to disperse into the ground. So, if the bottom 2 inches of the small one crack off when it hits the ground, the bottom 4 inches of the big one will. So you will be left with two basically identically damaged bowling balls, one twice the size of the other.

So, applying this to cars in accidents. Weight does not always help you if not applied to the right areas of the car. A 4500 pound Benz would have to crush twice as much material as a 2250 pound Metro to stop, assuming they were going the same speed and crashed into the same type of material. If they both crashed into a tree for example, the Benz would do a lot more damage to the tree. If they crashed into a solid wall however, the Benz had better have a hood section that's twice as long as the Metro, with twice as much weight in it, or bye bye passenger section.

If they were to crash into each other, however, you would be right. Say the Benz is going west and the Metro is going east (same speed). The whole mess will still be going somewhat west after the accident, meaning the Metro decelerated to a stop, then accelerated the other way (more force than just stopping) while the Benz didn't quite stop (less force...).

So, having a bigger car won't always save you, but when other people are involved, it usually helps.

[Dsuupr]

Wow have cars come along way since the 1975 240s (the original "saftey" car).

[TheMattMan]

Look what 10 years of design changes can do for a car......

1995 Mitsubushi Galant


2004 Mitsubushi Galant


1997 Citroen Xantia