Family Vehicles and Safety Ratings

Safety ratings aren't high on my list for my fun cars. My Jeep is actually pretty good for its weight and size, at least from the front, but that's not why I bought it. I'm sure my E30 is nothing special compared to cars nowadays. And I drove an '81 Corvette that was designed in the '60s more than occasionally for four years. I've never had a new vehicle and likely never will, but I'll be picking up a truck off of the used market that will be my general hauler - towing, carrying stuff in the bed and people in the cab. And I'm starting to worry about safety, not for my sake, but for my family's. I personally like older pikcups (up through '00) more than new ones, but will I drive myself crazy worrying about what I see on NHTSA and (especially) IIHS? Trucks from 2000 and before do miserably. Those up through '08 or so typically do great on the front, and awful on the side impact. I'm not really crazy about current-market pickups, but should safety for my family hauler trump all? How much do you pay attention to safety ratings and tests when you pick out a family car?

Not at all

umm lets put it this way.. If something happened, could you live with it.

I can honestly say I have never looked at them.

I just looked them up on my E150. It's safer for the passengers than the driver so if anything happens I'll be the first to die.

Of course the manufacturers like to tout the fact that they have high safety marks on their vehicles. Like any other industry though, I imagine they build cars and trucks to perform excellently in the tests, with the possible side-effect of handling a crash with reasonable results.

I mean, are cars now really so much safer now than 10 years ago? Or have manufacturers just figured out ways to trick the tests?

I feel it's safe to say that manufacturers are more concerned building their vehicles to score well in a test, because that's what will show up to the public and what will either damn them or move cars. And the IIHS doesn't test passenger ratings frontal impact, which I would imagine varies quite a bit due to not having a big honkin' steering wheel in your face. Annnnnd the fact that a 3000lb car with Good ratings all around will probably not fare so well in an impact against a 5000lb truck with Marginal ratings. I've seen a couple tests whereby they test two of the same vehicle (usually trucks) that weigh the same, are the same generation, but get varying marks. But it still concerns me.

If you don't hit E36 M3, it doesn't matter.

No full frame vehicle is going to perform as well as a unibody vehicle in a crash because it does not have the same type of crumple zone capability. The only thing that sorta-kinda-not really makes them 'safe' is their bulk.

Yes, the mfr's build vehicles to pass crash tests. There is no way you can plan for every conceivable type of collision out there. Additionally, I've ranted about the IIHS before and how they aren't always telling the full story.

You want your family to be safer? Have them take an advanced driving course. Being able to avoid or minimize a wreck is far better than hoping the vehicle will get you to survive a wreck.

I dont know. When I was a kid we didnt have air bags or crumple zones or even half way decent seat belts let alone baby car seats etc.

I

Stupid double post.

CaptainSpaulding wrote: I dont know. When I was a kid we didnt have air bags or crumple zones or even half way decent seat belts let alone baby car seats etc. I

Keep in mind there more people driving (now) than when you were a kid. If those devices didn't exist, accident fatalities and injuries would undoubtedly be far higher than what they are now.

That said, I'll always maintain that the safest drivers are those who are engaged in the art of driving, not those who just use a vehicle as a conveyance.

Defensive driving is a given, I'm just talking passive safety. I'm always more iffy and worried about putting loved ones into positions that I would put myself in.

I don't think that crash test performance gives you enough information to determine whether or not someone will survive a hypothetical real life incident, so you just have to decide what you are comfortable with. I heard a story of someone in a MK2 golf being hit head on by a modern SUV that crossed into his lane on a back road, and the driver of the golf had no serious injury, and the suv driver died. So, i dont worry about it too much because you really never know.

Streetwiseguy wrote: If you don't hit E36 M3, it doesn't matter.

+1. I sure don't care about safety ratings for non-family cars.

The IIHS gave the 01-06 Elantra's "Poor" ratings. I've watched dozens of these things get smacked up. Everyone has walked away. Headons, offset headon, t-boned, rear-ended, became the peanut butter in a sandwich..... Yes the car is totaled, but the occupants were unharmed. To me, that;s what they are for....

For the family vehicle I do take a look at it but it is used in conjunction with other considerations. If it comes down to a couple of different vehicles then that very well may be the deciding factor.

My wife is a very good driver, pays attention to what she is doing so I am not really worried about what she is doing, it is all the other knuckleheads that I worry about. Big SUVs filled with noisy kids and drivers on phones/texting scare the crap out of me so the safer the better.

Lucky for me, the best engineered cars usually are the safest. I won't buy a family car that isn't highly rated for safety. I check fatality and serious injury statistics too. Of course, those are even more flawed because they correlate to the drivers as well as the crashworthiness of the cars.

I'm sorry, but I figure if it's your time to "get it", what you are driving won't really matter all that much? Are you as obsessive about your insurance coverage? Do you have WAAAAY more than the minimums?

Pickup trucks lagged behind cars on safety until about 10 years ago. Why? The government didn't require them to be AS SAFE as cars....so they weren't. I owned a '94 Ranger, that was the FIRST year for side impact bars in the doors that were as strong/good as those required in an Escort. The '94 Escort had a driver's airbag, maybe even a passenger's airbag....the '94 Ranger? Neither.

Do you really think that if the Explorer "debacle" hadn't happened, we would see STANDARD stability control on trucks and SUVs BEFORE that feature appeared on cars?

BTW, I've driven several "light duty" trucks in the last 40 years, and I'll never forget seeing an Econoline pickup flip over and skid down the street on it's roof after it had been hit in the rear corner by a vehicle (forget if it was a car or another pickup truck) at speeds of no more than 25 mph.

I suppose they only test driver's side impacts in the IIHS offset crash because it's designed to simulate someone crossing into an oncoming lane. It's hard to tell how the passenger rating would be if there was no steering wheel to move upward. If I had my pick of a modern pickup (old Power Wagons and Studebakers don't apply), the '93-01 Ram would be my pick. The head rating ain't good, but it's because of the steering wheel. I'd be more concerned about the passengers, which unfortunately isn't tested

I don't care about what I'm driving in if its just me. My girlfriend? I get a little more nervous. My cousins who are under 10 who like to ride in the loud convertible? I'm super cautious by that point.

When I have a family, I can guarantee you that safety will be a high consideration.

mtn wrote: I don't care about what I'm driving in if its just me. My girlfriend? I get a little more nervous. My cousins who are under 10 who like to ride in the loud convertible? I'm super cautious by that point. When I have a family, I can guarantee you that safety will be a high consideration.

Exactly what I think. But even when tested, a "good" (as in 4 out of 4) rated small car ended up ratinged "poor" (lowest) when impacted by just a medium-sized car. There's something to be said for height and weight in a wreck, and as my DD will likely be a full-size truck, I'm wondering if a '98 Ram would out-rank an '11 Camry. Heck, even the best-rated truck (the F-150) leaves some uncertainty. It got Good ratings for side impacts, but they tested the crew cab, which has a B-pillar. I wonder how it'd change if they tested the extended cab, which has rear suicide doors and no B-pillar?

JeepinMatt wrote: I'm wondering if a '98 Ram would out-rank an '11 Camry.

The new camry will easily have better occupant survivability in a severe crash. It has 55 bajillion airbags to protect yo ass.

Airbags aren't going to hold back 5,000 pounds by themselves. Those best-safety-in-class economy cars had 55 bajillion airbags, but they got obliterated by the mid-sized cars when they crashed the two together.

You need the Jiffy Pop air bag system. Enjoy a tasty treat while waiting for the ambulance.