The 7 most unsafe cars on American roads
- Thread starter mechanicx
- Start date
- Status
Jeep too!Wrangler model
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
Jeep too!Wrangler model
Yeah, because they weigh about as much as a compact or mid-size sedan (~4K)
Jeep too!Wrangler model
Yeah, because they weigh about as much as a compact or mid-size sedan (~4K)
This is going to sound dumb, but I wouldn't think a wrangler would be a necessarily unsafe vehicle.
It has a full frame, solid axles, front-to-back engine and transmission (not mounted on top of each other) and most have a soft top. Seems like they'd have a lower center of gravity than most "cute utes" out there.
It has a full frame, solid axles, front-to-back engine and transmission (not mounted on top of each other) and most have a soft top. Seems like they'd have a lower center of gravity than most "cute utes" out there.
Originally Posted By: Miller88
This is going to sound dumb, but I wouldn't think a wrangler would be a necessarily unsafe vehicle.
It has a full frame, solid axles, front-to-back engine and transmission (not mounted on top of each other) and most have a soft top. Seems like they'd have a lower center of gravity than most "cute utes" out there.
Like I said, the center of gravity (and thus, a car's tendency to roll over) doesn't really matter as much as some people seem to think. I think weight, structural soundness, and safety features (belts, bags, etc.) are the only things that really save you in an accident. Specific to the Wrangler, it likely does not help that people like to take the doors off. I bet that does wonders for side-impact.
This is going to sound dumb, but I wouldn't think a wrangler would be a necessarily unsafe vehicle.
It has a full frame, solid axles, front-to-back engine and transmission (not mounted on top of each other) and most have a soft top. Seems like they'd have a lower center of gravity than most "cute utes" out there.
Like I said, the center of gravity (and thus, a car's tendency to roll over) doesn't really matter as much as some people seem to think. I think weight, structural soundness, and safety features (belts, bags, etc.) are the only things that really save you in an accident. Specific to the Wrangler, it likely does not help that people like to take the doors off. I bet that does wonders for side-impact.
I think that these car makers refused to play somehow and this is why they are being smeared.
I also don't trust ANYTHING that the insurance industry institute for highway safety does.
I agree this seems to be gotcha journalism.
I also don't trust ANYTHING that the insurance industry institute for highway safety does.
I agree this seems to be gotcha journalism.
Last edited:
Watch out for flying ball joints!
Originally Posted By: Axeman
As mentioned before by SteveSRT8, these crash tests should be taken with a grain of salt. As a firefighter, I have seen plenty of car accidents.
Good, you're the source who can answer my question. How are the seatbelts mounted up top in pickups in the States these days? Does the top portion tend to be mounted to the seat these days, like in Canada?
When they were mounted to the door itself, some years back, that caused an excessive number of belted occupants to be tossed from the vehicle. It doesn't matter whether you're in a Fiat or a Unimog - you get tossed, that's a bad thing.
As mentioned before by SteveSRT8, these crash tests should be taken with a grain of salt. As a firefighter, I have seen plenty of car accidents.
Good, you're the source who can answer my question. How are the seatbelts mounted up top in pickups in the States these days? Does the top portion tend to be mounted to the seat these days, like in Canada?
When they were mounted to the door itself, some years back, that caused an excessive number of belted occupants to be tossed from the vehicle. It doesn't matter whether you're in a Fiat or a Unimog - you get tossed, that's a bad thing.
Even the doors that are on Wranglers are paper-thin. You can hold a door handle and press in slightly. The whole door deforms in. Besides the frame, there really is little structure to them.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
If the cars are identical as well. In terms of mass and structure.
A few hundred pounds difference won't matter much but once you get full-size trucks hitting small, midsize, or even large cars, the 2-3000lb difference plus unequal bumper heights makes the folks in the car dead and folks in the truck just sore.
Sure, obviously there are other variables.
I just wanted to point out that the only way you can have a "combined 100 mph head-on crash" is if both cars are actually driving 100 mph. It's a common misconception that a vehicle of X speed going east collides with a vehicle of Y speed going west is a combined X+Y speed crash, as if it's equal to one car hitting a wall at X+Y speed.
If the cars are identical as well. In terms of mass and structure.
A few hundred pounds difference won't matter much but once you get full-size trucks hitting small, midsize, or even large cars, the 2-3000lb difference plus unequal bumper heights makes the folks in the car dead and folks in the truck just sore.
Sure, obviously there are other variables.
I just wanted to point out that the only way you can have a "combined 100 mph head-on crash" is if both cars are actually driving 100 mph. It's a common misconception that a vehicle of X speed going east collides with a vehicle of Y speed going west is a combined X+Y speed crash, as if it's equal to one car hitting a wall at X+Y speed.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Axeman
As mentioned before by SteveSRT8, these crash tests should be taken with a grain of salt. As a firefighter, I have seen plenty of car accidents.
Good, you're the source who can answer my question. How are the seatbelts mounted up top in pickups in the States these days? Does the top portion tend to be mounted to the seat these days, like in Canada?
I have not had the luxury of cutting open a brand new pickup, but all of the vehicles I have dealt with have the belts mounted in the B pillar. This is due to many late-model vehicle seat belts having pyrotechnic (sometimes electric) pretensioners.
Originally Posted By: Axeman
As mentioned before by SteveSRT8, these crash tests should be taken with a grain of salt. As a firefighter, I have seen plenty of car accidents.
Good, you're the source who can answer my question. How are the seatbelts mounted up top in pickups in the States these days? Does the top portion tend to be mounted to the seat these days, like in Canada?
I have not had the luxury of cutting open a brand new pickup, but all of the vehicles I have dealt with have the belts mounted in the B pillar. This is due to many late-model vehicle seat belts having pyrotechnic (sometimes electric) pretensioners.
Originally Posted By: Axeman
I have not had the luxury of cutting open a brand new pickup, but all of the vehicles I have dealt with have the belts mounted in the B pillar. This is due to many late-model vehicle seat belts having pyrotechnic (sometimes electric) pretensioners.
I haven't been in a lot of new pickups as of late, either. I have noticed that the GM ones up here have the top of the should belt mounted right into the seat, which can be a lot safer.
It's also important to note - and I'm sure you've seen this - that B pillar mounted seatbelts are substantially safer in regular cab pickups than they are in extended cab or four door pickups.
The worst we had up here were the belt design in the early Cavaliers and the Chevy Berettas, where all the seatbelt hardware was mounted to the door. If the door would pop open in a collision, the occupant would no longer be belted in.
I have not had the luxury of cutting open a brand new pickup, but all of the vehicles I have dealt with have the belts mounted in the B pillar. This is due to many late-model vehicle seat belts having pyrotechnic (sometimes electric) pretensioners.
I haven't been in a lot of new pickups as of late, either. I have noticed that the GM ones up here have the top of the should belt mounted right into the seat, which can be a lot safer.
It's also important to note - and I'm sure you've seen this - that B pillar mounted seatbelts are substantially safer in regular cab pickups than they are in extended cab or four door pickups.
The worst we had up here were the belt design in the early Cavaliers and the Chevy Berettas, where all the seatbelt hardware was mounted to the door. If the door would pop open in a collision, the occupant would no longer be belted in.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I saw this article a while back, and was surprised by some as well. This will only drive insurance rates up for these vehicles. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about the safety of none of them.
I'm thinking that they already knew this on an actuarial basis and priced it in.
I saw this article a while back, and was surprised by some as well. This will only drive insurance rates up for these vehicles. Otherwise, I wouldn't worry about the safety of none of them.
I'm thinking that they already knew this on an actuarial basis and priced it in.
Originally Posted By: Axeman
I’m not a big conspiracy nut at all, but large cars get a really bad reputation due to the new eco religion in America. I sometimes think that these pickup/SUV crash test ratings might just be a little exaggerated.
It is a mistake to only think about multi-vehicle accidents when coming to vehicle safety. Pickup trucks have a high percentage of single vehicle accident fatalities. Large pickup trucks are no safer than a midsize car - by fatality statistics.
IIHS driver death rate by model
I’m not a big conspiracy nut at all, but large cars get a really bad reputation due to the new eco religion in America. I sometimes think that these pickup/SUV crash test ratings might just be a little exaggerated.
It is a mistake to only think about multi-vehicle accidents when coming to vehicle safety. Pickup trucks have a high percentage of single vehicle accident fatalities. Large pickup trucks are no safer than a midsize car - by fatality statistics.
IIHS driver death rate by model
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: mpvue
ironically, except for the suzuki, these aren't small vehicles. common public (mis)perception is compacts are dangerous, and big trucks are safe.
In a head-on collision of a Ram vs. a SmartCar or a Fiat 500, I think I'd rather be in the Ram though.
So what. This isn't about trying to find one specific type of accident. Its about looking at the total driving experience.
Originally Posted By: mpvue
ironically, except for the suzuki, these aren't small vehicles. common public (mis)perception is compacts are dangerous, and big trucks are safe.
In a head-on collision of a Ram vs. a SmartCar or a Fiat 500, I think I'd rather be in the Ram though.
So what. This isn't about trying to find one specific type of accident. Its about looking at the total driving experience.
Originally Posted By: Garak
The worst we had up here were the belt design in the early Cavaliers and the Chevy Berettas, where all the seatbelt hardware was mounted to the door. If the door would pop open in a collision, the occupant would no longer be belted in.
They did that when passive restraint was first required in place of using airbags or automatic seat belts. In theory, the occupants could enter and exit with the seatbelt still fastened, so GM would not have to retrofit auomatic seatbelts or airbags to these models. As I recall the doors had extra reinforcement and latch and were as strong as the B-pillar anyway, so I'm not sure it was a big problem.
The worst we had up here were the belt design in the early Cavaliers and the Chevy Berettas, where all the seatbelt hardware was mounted to the door. If the door would pop open in a collision, the occupant would no longer be belted in.
They did that when passive restraint was first required in place of using airbags or automatic seat belts. In theory, the occupants could enter and exit with the seatbelt still fastened, so GM would not have to retrofit auomatic seatbelts or airbags to these models. As I recall the doors had extra reinforcement and latch and were as strong as the B-pillar anyway, so I'm not sure it was a big problem.
That was such a joke. I had an '89 Olds touring sedan (98) with the belt attached to the door. You couldn't really get in and out with it buckled.
I also had a '91 Escort GT with the motorized mouse that ran the shoulder belt. You still had to do the lap belt manually and if you tried to get out too fast it would wrap around your neck.
What I take from these test results is that if you drive a 350Z, you are pretty likely to die. What they don't mention is that 350z owners are either super agressive guys, or women. No offense to either group.
I also had a '91 Escort GT with the motorized mouse that ran the shoulder belt. You still had to do the lap belt manually and if you tried to get out too fast it would wrap around your neck.
What I take from these test results is that if you drive a 350Z, you are pretty likely to die. What they don't mention is that 350z owners are either super agressive guys, or women. No offense to either group.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
As I recall the doors had extra reinforcement and latch and were as strong as the B-pillar anyway, so I'm not sure it was a big problem.
I do recall the passive restraint requirement. Believe me, though, it was a big problem. Even when the door didn't blow open, they wouldn't hold the occupant as securely as "normal" seatbelts.
The issue with the seatbelt point on the B-pillar in extended cab and four door trucks is pretty bad, too, statistically. It was much better when they started mounting them directly to the seats.
As I recall the doors had extra reinforcement and latch and were as strong as the B-pillar anyway, so I'm not sure it was a big problem.
I do recall the passive restraint requirement. Believe me, though, it was a big problem. Even when the door didn't blow open, they wouldn't hold the occupant as securely as "normal" seatbelts.
The issue with the seatbelt point on the B-pillar in extended cab and four door trucks is pretty bad, too, statistically. It was much better when they started mounting them directly to the seats.
Are you talking about this?
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/595579/1989-chevrolet-cavalier#5955790009
Thanks for posting about that generation of Cavalier it brings back memories from 15 years ago. Try driving one of those rust buckets at 97MPH. I believe my little brother is still having "flash backs" to this day.
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/595579/1989-chevrolet-cavalier#5955790009
Thanks for posting about that generation of Cavalier it brings back memories from 15 years ago. Try driving one of those rust buckets at 97MPH. I believe my little brother is still having "flash backs" to this day.
accident survival rates are very hard to predict; my mother died in a car accident last year; she was in the back seat, no seatbelt and she was thrown from the car (Honda CR-V)when it rolled.
the 2 front occupants just had some bruises and were home in a few hours.
many of us have been under the impression that the back seat is safer, but that's assuming you stay in the car. or maybe not. the front occupants have more air bags, but you can never really predict the outcome.
the 2 front occupants just had some bruises and were home in a few hours.
many of us have been under the impression that the back seat is safer, but that's assuming you stay in the car. or maybe not. the front occupants have more air bags, but you can never really predict the outcome.
- Status
Similar threads
