Top 20 Most Dangerous Cars

[MadCow809]

Topping the list of the least safe: the Buick Rendezvous, the Ford Ranger/Mazda B-Series, the Nissan Frontier, the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner and the Toyota Yaris.

link

Never heard of any above mentioned cars apart from Nissan, Mazda and the Yaris.

Heck... I even recommended my sister to buy an Yaris not too long ago

[teeb]

What no G-wiz?

[Speedtouch]

And at 11th...


The Suzuki Reno/Forenza! Also known as the Chevrolet/Daewoo Lacetti!

[matyas]

No Brilliance saloons? New Chinese Smart?

I am quoting from the Yaris here:
"Even though the Yaris has impressive fuel efficiency, a nicely designed interior, high expected reliability, and a number of other positive attributes, Consumer Reports' John Linkov says that the Yaris can't be recommended, "because its emergency handling is quite tail-happy and the driver could get out of control very quickly." And to make an especially dangerous combination, the Yaris four-door performs badly in both major side-crash tests, with three stars from NHTSA and a "Poor" rating from the IIHS."

Funny how EuroNCAP give it 5 stars.
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/toyota..._2005/246.aspx

By the way, judging by the old Yaris, the Yaris is a great car. You made a good recommendation to your sister The looks need time to get used to, but the rear legroom is acceptable, even with my standards, and the front legroom is astonishing. Also, my father says that the car is very fun to drive, as long as the winter wheels are not on.

[Sruikyl]

interesting..I expected the caparo T1 to be #1.. o.O

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by MadCow809

link

Never heard of any above mentioned cars apart from Nissan, Mazda and the Yaris.

Heck... I even recommended my sister to buy an Yaris not too long ago

Basically, Forbes (for the most part) is pulling numbers out of their behinds to make a sensationalist article.

However, there are some true factoids in the article, like so:

"Which leads to another major point: "Size and weight are very important aspects of safety," he says. "The laws of physics always apply in a crash. That means that people in smaller and lighter vehicles are always at a disadvantage in crashes with other vehicles.""

Absolutely true. In a collision between my "old tech" Series III and something like a Yaris, it's very likely that the Yaris driver is going to die, multi-star impact rating or not. And that's fine with me, because while I chose safety, security, and comfort (among other things) when selecting a vehicle, the Yaris driver chose to sacrifice those for price and fuel efficiency. Likewise, when I drive smaller cars, I accept that my chances of dying in an accident are much greater because I have (at that time) made that trade-off as well. Cars are a zero sum game.


It should also be noted that the IIHS ratings are somewhat of a joke. While yes, they do somewhat reflect the safety issues and impact characteristics of a vehicle, their overriding factor for consideration is "cost of repair". If they test your car, and a 15mph impact breaks two $1100 lighting units, but the rest of the car is intact and no injuries were suffered? Yeah, guess what - you get a POOR rating from the IIHS.

Nice, huh?

[matyas]

I would certainly agree with you Spectre...but then again, there is always the exception that may prove us wrong:

[YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I[/YOUTUBE]

[AiR]

Never heard of those cars except the Yaris which I dont like.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Absolutely true. In a collision between my "old tech" Series III and something like a Yaris, it's very likely that the Yaris driver is going to die, multi-star impact rating or not.

Baloney. Your Series III will crumple like a cardboard box, and it's very likely that the engine will end up in your lap. In an impact, it's all about kinetic energy - and in kinetic energy, velocity plays a much bigger role than mass. Newer cars are built much, much stiffer than your Jag and will cleave through it like a hot knife through butter. Sorry about that.

[crashmaxx]

Originally Posted by Spectre

Basically, Forbes (for the most part) is pulling numbers out of their behinds to make a sensationalist article.

However, there are some true factoids in the article, like so:

"Which leads to another major point: "Size and weight are very important aspects of safety," he says. "The laws of physics always apply in a crash. That means that people in smaller and lighter vehicles are always at a disadvantage in crashes with other vehicles.""

Absolutely true. In a collision between my "old tech" Series III and something like a Yaris, it's very likely that the Yaris driver is going to die, multi-star impact rating or not. And that's fine with me, because while I chose safety, security, and comfort (among other things) when selecting a vehicle, the Yaris driver chose to sacrifice those for price and fuel efficiency. Likewise, when I drive smaller cars, I accept that my chances of dying in an accident are much greater because I have (at that time) made that trade-off as well. Cars are a zero sum game.


It should also be noted that the IIHS ratings are somewhat of a joke. While yes, they do somewhat reflect the safety issues and impact characteristics of a vehicle, their overriding factor for consideration is "cost of repair". If they test your car, and a 15mph impact breaks two $1100 lighting units, but the rest of the car is intact and no injuries were suffered? Yeah, guess what - you get a POOR rating from the IIHS.

Nice, huh?

I agree that the article isn't very good.

But I don't totally agree with you on the weight factor. Weight is important, it determines which vehicle stops and which plows through the other. But that really isn't that important for safety. The smaller car will have a much harder deceleration, true, but the biggest factors are occupant space and how well the air bags and seat belts catch you. Have you seen the Fifth Gear where they crashed a small car with a 5 star rating into a big car with a 3 star? The small car still managed better even though it had weight going against it. Now the difference wasn't as great as a semi truck and a supermini, but that is a real worst case senerio.

Overall, a safer car is a safer car more or less. Stuff like cheap Ford panel vans do terrible in crashes. The steering wheel hits you in the face, the foot well crushes your feet, and with no air bags you smash into everything. With a car like that, you are dead regardless what you hit or how slow. In a head on with a Smart car, the Smart will still be better. But that is ignoring the fact that you still have the same chance of hitting a big truck as a small car would. And when you do, you are no doubt dead meat. And you can also hit a solid object, and again, the safety features are all you have.

In short, yes, less weight puts a car at a disadvantage in a crash. But it is not the biggest factor in crashes, nor should it be how you decide what car to drive. A safer car is a safer car, end of story. You are better off driving a small car with 5 stars then a big one with 3 stars, and it pisses me off that people think otherwise.

You not wrong, no, but it is a terrible idea to give people. Buying an old Ford Explorer for your daughter's first car would be a huge mistake compared to even a Smart car. She would be at a huge risk of making a mistake and rolling it and dieing. She would also be in trouble hitting a tree and it would be a crime if she lost control and ran into people with such a huge truck. It is reasonable to get a compact car for her for this sort of reasoning, but people always want to make that jump to a SUV and that is part of why we have so many of them out there killing people.

This false assumption hurts more people then it helps. It has a basis in truth, but it is just plain the wrong factor to look at.

[jayhawk]

I think before making judgments on any of the vehicles, careful scrutiny of each vehicle, and why it is flawed, according to Forbes, must be employed.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by BerserkerCatSplat

Baloney. Your Series III will crumple like a cardboard box, and it's very likely that the engine will end up in your lap. In an impact, it's all about kinetic energy - and in kinetic energy, velocity plays a much bigger role than mass. Newer cars are built much, much stiffer than your Jag and will cleave through it like a hot knife through butter. Sorry about that.

BAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Series I-III XJ is one of the stiffest cars ever to come out of Britain. Want to see what an XJ looks like after plowing into a barrier at 35mph?



Front of the hood is crumpled. Passenger cell is intact. Everything after the front axle is still intact. Engine is pushed back a bit, but like Mercedes, the engine goes *down* when it comes off the mounts.

Want to see what a Series III looks like after a 10,000lb ambulance rear ends it at a light (ambulance doing 60)?





MMmm, yes, that folded up like a wet cardboard box.... so badly bent that the passenger cell is still unbreached and all the glass is still intact. Oh, and the driver? Yeah, aside from a little whiplash, he's perfectly fine.

FYI, in various tests, the old Series I-III XJs did *better* in safety and crash ratings than any comparable Volvo ever did.

Also, Barbara Mandrell went head to head with a full size truck in her Series III. She and her family survived. The truck driver *didn't*.

Never, EVER assume that because a car is old that it is unsafe. The Series III still passes the '08 US side impact standards (might have something to do with the MASSIVE steel box beams in the doors).

You were wrong. Sorry about that, as you say.

Originally Posted by crashmaxx

You not wrong, no, but it is a terrible idea to give people. Buying an old Ford Explorer for your daughter's first car would be a huge mistake compared to even a Smart car. She would be at a huge risk of making a mistake and rolling it and dieing. She would also be in trouble hitting a tree and it would be a crime if she lost control and ran into people with such a huge truck. It is reasonable to get a compact car for her for this sort of reasoning, but people always want to make that jump to a SUV and that is part of why we have so many of them out there killing people.

This false assumption hurts more people then it helps. It has a basis in truth, but it is just plain the wrong factor to look at.

Actually, as you say, you're not wrong, but you're not wholly right either. Percieved safety is not the only reason why people drive SUVs. People prefer the upright high-viz seating position, the fact that one can store a lot in them, the fact that they tow things... there's lots of factors in choosing a vehicle.

Weight should not be the overriding factor in selecting a car. One can select for safety features, build quality, etc., etc. However, all else being equal, and as the NHTSA has proven, the heavier car *is* safer (assuming equivalent crash ratings) - so much safer that if you take two otherwise similar cars and equip one with an airbag but lighten it by 500lbs, the other car will be statistically as safe. The key there is "all else being equal". Nobody with half a brain is going to accept that something like a Ford Econoline (which has an abysmal crash rating) is going to do better in a crash than something like a Volvo S60. It's not. But if you take, say, a Volvo V70 and a V40, which do you think is going to do better?

By the way, the Smarts have been on sale here in Dallas for a while. They're not faring so well on the highways here. I've witnessed a highway collision (or the aftermath thereof) between an F-350 and a Smart. The Smart came off second best by a LONG LONG way.

[anti-net]

I'm surprised that the Focus in the USA isn't very safe when it's one of the safest cars on sale in Europe atm

[edkwon]

Originally Posted by MadCow809

link

Never heard of any above mentioned cars apart from Nissan, Mazda and the Yaris.

Heck... I even recommended my sister to buy an Yaris not too long ago

Thats because youre lucky enough not to have most of those cars in your domestic market....unfortunately we have ALL of them available. Still i'm surprised you never heard of the Honda S2000 that was mentioned towards the end of the list. Im a little confused why they would include a convertible among a group of hardtop cars when it comes to safety, crash ratings, seems kind of odd.

Originally Posted by anti-net

I'm surprised that the Focus in the USA isn't very safe when it's one of the safest cars on sale in Europe atm

because the US is still using the gen I focus while your UK gen II and gen III Focuses probably have vastly improved NCAP crash ratings and chassis safety designed in.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by anti-net

I'm surprised that the Focus in the USA isn't very safe when it's one of the safest cars on sale in Europe atm

As edkwon pointed out, we still have the Mk I Focus here (though the article above is about a year old). On top of that, it is poorly assembled/'loosely screwed together' by the UAW, so that also detracts from its potential safety. The US Focus has the dubious honor of being the most recalled car in American history, displacing the old X-body GM cars as the new "king of defects."

Originally Posted by edkwon

Still i'm surprised you never heard of the Honda S2000 that was mentioned towards the end of the list. Im a little confused why they would include a convertible among a group of hardtop cars when it comes to safety, crash ratings, seems kind of odd.

I especially like how, apparently, the only reason the S2000 is on that list is because you can't get side airbags in it.

[Lemmy]

Originally Posted by Spectre

BAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Series I-III XJ is one of the stiffest cars ever to come out of Britain. Want to see what an XJ looks like after plowing into a barrier at 35mph?

Front of the hood is crumpled. Passenger cell is intact. Everything after the front axle is still intact. Engine is pushed back a bit, but like Mercedes, the engine goes *down* when it comes off the mounts.

MMmm, yes, that folded up like a wet cardboard box.... so badly bent that the passenger cell is still unbreached and all the glass is still intact. Oh, and the driver? Yeah, aside from a little whiplash, he's perfectly fine.

FYI, in various tests, the old Series I-III XJs did *better* in safety and crash ratings than any comparable Volvo ever did.

Also, Barbara Mandrell went head to head with a full size truck in her Series III. She and her family survived. The truck driver *didn't*.

Never, EVER assume that because a car is old that it is unsafe. The Series III still passes the '08 US side impact standards (might have something to do with the MASSIVE steel box beams in the doors).

You were wrong. Sorry about that, as you say.

Sure, he may have been wrong - but you don't have to be a prick about it...

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Spectre

The US Focus has the dubious honor of being the most recalled car in American history, displacing the old X-body GM cars as the new "king of defects."

Boy, that is a badge of honor I would keep far far away from anyone.

Originally Posted by Spectre

I especially like how, apparently, the only reason the S2000 is on that list is because you can't get side airbags in it.

I noticed that too, a bit of a "well, DUH!" moment when I read it.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

Sure, he may have been wrong - but you don't have to be a prick about it...

Normally, I wouldn't have - but he set the tone with his own post. "Sorry about that," indeed.

Sow the wind, etc., etc.

Anyway, on a less acidic note, here's one poor SOB that took his Series II XJ6 head to head with a newer Mazda Midge, AKA the Mazda 323. The Mazda pretty much bit the big one, the XJ was damaged but mostly intact and had no passenger cell intrusion.

http://www.claymore.co.za/sherekhan/gallery3.html

Edit: Should also add - I am *far* less sanguine about the XJR in a crash. It's just not as sturdy, IMHO. Thank you, Ford. Thanks a lot.

[edkwon]

Originally Posted by Lemmy

Sure, he may have been wrong - but you don't have to be a prick about it...

eh, stop being so sensitive, he was contesting a point (on a subject he obviously has quite a bit of knowledge on) which he thought was incorrect, told that person he was wrong, and backed it up with crash test photos and empirical/anecdotal evidence.

that's hardly being 'a prick'.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally Posted by Spectre

BAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Series I-III XJ is one of the stiffest cars ever to come out of Britain. Want to see what an XJ looks like after plowing into a barrier at 35mph?



Front of the hood is crumpled. Passenger cell is intact. Everything after the front axle is still intact. Engine is pushed back a bit, but like Mercedes, the engine goes *down* when it comes off the mounts.

Are you seeing the same picture I am? I'm seeing a car with a long frontal area, with the frontal area including motor pushed completely backwards into the passenger compartment. The motor went down? there's nothing under that car, did it go into magical Jaguar fairyland?

Want to see what a Series III looks like after a 10,000lb ambulance rear ends it at a light (ambulance doing 60)?





MMmm, yes, that folded up like a wet cardboard box.... so badly bent that the passenger cell is still unbreached and all the glass is still intact. Oh, and the driver? Yeah, aside from a little whiplash, he's perfectly fine.

If that was a direct rearending, I'm Carrot Top and you're Elvis Presley. You can plainly see the car was hit at an angle and therefore spun instead of taking the full force of the impact.

Nothing you posted here has proved your precious Jag is any safer than a new car. Nothing.

But, hey while I'm at it I'll point out that stiffness can be hugely detrimental to survivability. Sheer rapid deceleration is a huge cause of death in accidents, a purely stiff car puts its passengers through massive deceleration in an accident. A car with a stiff passenger compartment and well-designed crumple areas reduces the brutal deceleration and protects the passengers better.