Lomeinhu
05-25-2002, 08:46 PM
Not Celica stuff, but I think this is something that everyone should be aware of. From Ward's Auto news:
WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - Crashes at 5 mph (8 kph) may seem harmless, but they still inflict significant and costly damage to some mid-size cars, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a report released on Friday.
The institute tested nine mid-size vehicles ranging from inexpensive to luxury cars, and reported that five of the nine rated poorly for bumper performance in low-speed crashes and that none of the automobiles earned a good rating.
The institute is an independent research organization funded by auto insurers that conducts safety tests on vehicles purchased from dealers.
Toyota's 2002 Camry and the Lexus ES 300 were the only models to receive an "acceptable" rating from the institute, while the performance of the Nissan Altima and the Acura TL were judged to be "marginal."
Jaguar was rated the worst performer of all, as its X-Type sustained more than $2,000 in damage in two of the four tests, and more than $1,000 of damage in the "front-into-flat-barrier" test, rated by the institute as the easiest of the lot.
"A car really shouldn't sustain any damage at all in the flat-barrier impact," Adrian Lund, the institute's chief operating officer, said in a statement.
"It's a very minor impact, and the energy of the impact is spread across the whole front of the car. It should be routine to go through this test unscathed," he added.
And while the X-Type boasts sensors in the rear bumper that alert a driver to obstacles as the car backs up, the anti-collision system does nothing to reduce damage inflicted by getting in a rear-end collision in traffic, Lund said.
The remaining "poor" performers were the Hyundai XG350, the Saab 9-5, the Lexus IS300 and the Volvo S60.
Only the Hyundai suffered damage in excess of $1,000 in the same test. The remaining vehicles sustained damage for which repair cost from $234 for the Lexus ES 300 to $977 in the case of the IS300, according to the institute.
In harsher tests, such as a front impact into an angle barrier or backing up into a pole, the X-Type suffered damage beyond the bumper system. The front impact test damaged the hood, front fender and headlight assembly, the institute said.
The pole test showed the Jaguar's rear bumper could not absorb the energy of the crash, and the trunk lid suffered "severe crushing," the institute said.
The ES 300 was the best performer in this test, suffering $537 in damage.
Three of the cars tested were revamped versions of older models -- the Altima, the Saab 9-5 and the Camry. All three 2002 versions rated worse than their predecessors, the institute said.
"There's no excuse for this," Lund said. "Nissan, Saab and Toyota all know how to design and equip their cars with better bumpers. ... The manufacturers are going the wrong way."
"These automakers apparently have forgotten about the very frequent low-speed crashes," he added.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I'm really surprised at the results. I thought we're supposed to be getting better cars. I'm all for better looking cars, but not so much as to give up safety. Once a vehicle achieves a level of safety, it should be a GIVEN that the next generation will be at least equally safe, if not more so. The newly designed Ford Explorer was rated very poorly in a recent crash test, receiving criticisms that Ford ignored the opportunity to improve the Explorer's poor crash test record. I never thought Toyota and Nissan would be taking the same road. And Jaguar?? I mean, seriously, where do all that money go?? What good are sensors if all they do is make you shell out a huge sum of money to fix it when it's broken? I'm beginning to suspect that car companies are trying to get away with reducing safety component costs and making us consumers pay them when anything's broken in an accident. Remember how dealers make the most money from services and repairs? Consumers have to take the blunt b/c insurance companies have to pay more and more for covering damages, thus raising the rates even more. Why don't insurance companies put pressure on car makers to make damages less costly? I've heard the excuse before, car makers always say, "Well, for safety reasons, expensive parts must be used, and you can never pay enough for safety." Well, that's only true if the car is ACTUALLY SAFE!!
WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - Crashes at 5 mph (8 kph) may seem harmless, but they still inflict significant and costly damage to some mid-size cars, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a report released on Friday.
The institute tested nine mid-size vehicles ranging from inexpensive to luxury cars, and reported that five of the nine rated poorly for bumper performance in low-speed crashes and that none of the automobiles earned a good rating.
The institute is an independent research organization funded by auto insurers that conducts safety tests on vehicles purchased from dealers.
Toyota's 2002 Camry and the Lexus ES 300 were the only models to receive an "acceptable" rating from the institute, while the performance of the Nissan Altima and the Acura TL were judged to be "marginal."
Jaguar was rated the worst performer of all, as its X-Type sustained more than $2,000 in damage in two of the four tests, and more than $1,000 of damage in the "front-into-flat-barrier" test, rated by the institute as the easiest of the lot.
"A car really shouldn't sustain any damage at all in the flat-barrier impact," Adrian Lund, the institute's chief operating officer, said in a statement.
"It's a very minor impact, and the energy of the impact is spread across the whole front of the car. It should be routine to go through this test unscathed," he added.
And while the X-Type boasts sensors in the rear bumper that alert a driver to obstacles as the car backs up, the anti-collision system does nothing to reduce damage inflicted by getting in a rear-end collision in traffic, Lund said.
The remaining "poor" performers were the Hyundai XG350, the Saab 9-5, the Lexus IS300 and the Volvo S60.
Only the Hyundai suffered damage in excess of $1,000 in the same test. The remaining vehicles sustained damage for which repair cost from $234 for the Lexus ES 300 to $977 in the case of the IS300, according to the institute.
In harsher tests, such as a front impact into an angle barrier or backing up into a pole, the X-Type suffered damage beyond the bumper system. The front impact test damaged the hood, front fender and headlight assembly, the institute said.
The pole test showed the Jaguar's rear bumper could not absorb the energy of the crash, and the trunk lid suffered "severe crushing," the institute said.
The ES 300 was the best performer in this test, suffering $537 in damage.
Three of the cars tested were revamped versions of older models -- the Altima, the Saab 9-5 and the Camry. All three 2002 versions rated worse than their predecessors, the institute said.
"There's no excuse for this," Lund said. "Nissan, Saab and Toyota all know how to design and equip their cars with better bumpers. ... The manufacturers are going the wrong way."
"These automakers apparently have forgotten about the very frequent low-speed crashes," he added.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be honest, I'm really surprised at the results. I thought we're supposed to be getting better cars. I'm all for better looking cars, but not so much as to give up safety. Once a vehicle achieves a level of safety, it should be a GIVEN that the next generation will be at least equally safe, if not more so. The newly designed Ford Explorer was rated very poorly in a recent crash test, receiving criticisms that Ford ignored the opportunity to improve the Explorer's poor crash test record. I never thought Toyota and Nissan would be taking the same road. And Jaguar?? I mean, seriously, where do all that money go?? What good are sensors if all they do is make you shell out a huge sum of money to fix it when it's broken? I'm beginning to suspect that car companies are trying to get away with reducing safety component costs and making us consumers pay them when anything's broken in an accident. Remember how dealers make the most money from services and repairs? Consumers have to take the blunt b/c insurance companies have to pay more and more for covering damages, thus raising the rates even more. Why don't insurance companies put pressure on car makers to make damages less costly? I've heard the excuse before, car makers always say, "Well, for safety reasons, expensive parts must be used, and you can never pay enough for safety." Well, that's only true if the car is ACTUALLY SAFE!!