Which one of these cars are the safest, and which one should I get?

Just buy an old Jeep CJ, stick some 36x13.5" Swampers on there and drive however you want. Not great at handling but if you roll over, who cares? I felt safer in my Jeep then in any other vehicle I've driven ....I loved the relatively low center of gravity (with wider tires) and the fact that I was inside a massive metal cage. My buddy had been hit at 60kmh by a front-end loader that backed into the intersection and all he had were a few bruises and a sore wrist ...the Jeep was completely intact except for a bent bumper, misaligned tires and a cracked manifold.

And you said you didn't really care about mpg ...which is good. Mine got around 8mpg ;p

Reliability isn't a factor either, right? That's good too ...cuz I passed everything on the highway except the garage.

But if you want a safe car, go with Volvo. My parents owned Volvo's throughout my whole childhood due to safety and the reinforced beams. I remember one accident we got in ...there was about a 6" deep impression in the side door and you couldn't even see it on the inside. But, Volvo's are almost as bad as Jeep's for reliability and they are expensive as hell to fix. Not to mention, most mechanics have no idea what they are doing under a Volvo hood ...

Rather than trusting some "official" statistics on testing, why not check insurance rates ...you can bet that the safest cars generally have lower insurance because the company is less likely to have to dish out liability costs. The exception is if the car has expensive-to-replace parts (ie ...higher end imports ...BMW, Volvo, etc). You can bet tho that the insurance companies probably have the "real" stats that matter.

My bet, the best bang for your buck along with safety concerns is a newer Accord or maybe even a Camry (altho I'm not a fan of Toyota's V6). I don't know (or care) about safety ratings from these "official" places but I do alot of junkyard scrounging for parts and most Accords seemed to have faired not too badly even in write-off accidents. I can't say the same about Corolla's, Civic's and older Accords tho.

I also wouldn't expect the Matrix/Vibe to be great in T-Bone accidents. They seem too high up and would probably roll. You might also want to look at the Jetta as an option ...nice car.

And as someone who's been in more accidents than I can count (and no, I've never been at fault for one - yet), safety should definitely been an issue, but I think it's more on how you drive than anything. Instead of worrying about it so much, find a car that you feel COMFORTABLE in ...because then you relax and can sit back from the steering wheel and not be so tense ...which is why I've never been hurt in any accident. I've almost always seen the accident coming before it's happened and I've actually learned to just close my eyes while it happens and listen for the familiar sound. It's when you tense up and move towards the steering wheel that you'll get rocked and be staring at the Hospital Ceiling.

Anyways, good luck. Don't pull your hair out because it may not matter anyway. You could be in the safest car on the road and the F350 Dualie running the red is going to make Metal-Sushi out of your car anyways.

PS: borrow $10k and buy a Lexus sc300! Yummy ;p

Cheers!

What a pleasant topic! I didn't even really read the rest of the post. Made me think of a porcupine I saw up the road this A.M. that didn't

*quite* make it!

However:

Most Toyotas rate very highly in IIHS tests for the driver. So do Ford Tauruses (Tauri?)

I can tell you from 1st hand experience that Volvos are pretty survivable, although a wife's friend wasn't so fortunate. I rolled a '73 1800ES, once over lightly, thanks! As I was sitting in the car at times, (stop lights, parking lots) I uesd to reach up to the roof, and I noticed there was a steel or iron something under the headliner. Well, this turned out to be the rollbar...Lucky me!

Honda Civics and Accords are nice cars, and if you can get one with side airbags, good. But, and excuse me here, you seem a little paranoid of driving (and good reason: if it's still on your server, see the dissertation I posted a couple weeks ago about every Mario on the roads these days...) buy a nice heavy car. Crown Victoria springs to mind right off the bat, Buick Roadmonster is another, or go looking at SUVs (UGH!!!) with full frames and airbags.

Your buddy was hit a 60kmh (35 MPH) by a front-end loader that was BACKING into the intersection? That loader must have been equipped with a Viper V10. ;)

mike hunt

griff>

Heh, that would actually have been pretty funny to see a loader coming at you at 60kmh ...I'd probably die of a heartattack. But for those of you who honestly thought it was the loader moving at 60kmh, I'll clarify ...actually no I won't. I'll just let you bask in your own thought ...or lack thereof.

I received a side impact from a 4x4 at 70 miles per hour on a UK motorway, and subsequently my car rolled five times before coming to rest. The car (a

1992 Volvo 940) was a total wreck, but I survived and after a short spell (1 week) in hospital with a few broken ribs - the car was not fitted with airbags - I went on to make a full recovery. I was told at the time that there were only two types of car where a driver would have survived such an accident - a Volvo or a Mercedes. So I went and bought another Volvo. I'd recommend you to do likewise!

Bill

> > Could it be true that a Volvo could produce a car that was so unsafe> > > in the front offset crash after all the money and research and hard> > > work they put into producing their flagship model?> > >

> >

Hi "Griffin"

A low Centre of Gravity is certainly a "good thing" with respect to the roll-over risk, but wider tires will not lower the Cof G. Wider tires *will* widen the "track" of the vehicle and this too is a "good thing" w.r.to the roll over risk. It's all about keeping the CofG within the base, in this case the track, of the vehicle as it tilts, and of course both a low Cof G and a wide track will help to achieve this.

Andy I.

In order to put 13.5" wide tires on a Jeep and still have a workable turn-radius, you must use longer axles ...like something from a 1ton military vehicle. Barring any rediculous lift-kits (hence keeping 36" tires ...ie: 3" lift), this not only lengthens the track but it lowers the CoG within the Jeep, especially since the width and length of the Jeep now becomes almost the same and the height is not increased as much as the track. You're basically driving a square with the majority of the weight centered around the middle of the horizontal z-axis (about where the body meets the chassis). It may not be super-lower relative to a sports car ...but considering what you're driving, the CoG is relatively low (esp compared to most SUV's)

When I lived in Spain working for NASA, we drove Seat's(Spanish Fiat's) as company cars. My very first day, 4 of us got in one...they put me in the suicide seat...and off we went!

Spain at the time (and I expect now, too) had rock fences on the roads we traveled on. Looked like a single lane road.

Soooooooooooo we come racing around a corner and the biggest f'ing BUS I've ever seen comes right for us. I have NO idea how we missed him, but all the guys were laffin! Welcome to Spain they said...LOL

I had a ball in my BMW.

Well that's one thing that I was thinking, being hit from the side on a large intersection would give you plenty of room for being flipped but you'd need an external input to trigger that such as a collision.

Hedges aren't so great when you're following the hedge trimming tractor down a single track lane. :)

David.

So you were stationary perpendicular across the carriageway? What else happened prior to this?

They essentially have.

Are you willing to pay for all that, especially for the small additional margin of protection they would provide? U.S. cars have long been required to withstand rear impacts of 30 MPH without fuel leakage, and most can actually take > 40 MPH.

Forget the Volvo; Volvo's reputation for crash safety is overblown, and the cars aren't that reliable and parts are expensive.

GM has said that about 95% of a car's safety is in its crash avoidance ability, but they also found that most people exploited only half of a vehicle's maneuverability (I have no idea how they defined "half"). The most important crash survival criteria is probably head injury (HIC, Head Impact Criteria, expressed on a points scale), but I don't know what comes next -- chest force, leg force, or side HIC.

Side air bags can be a big help in side crashes. Experts disagree about whether offset or full frontal crash test results are more important, and a car can be designed to do badly in one test yet well in the other, but don't be impressed by the Insurance Institute's claim that their test is done at 40 MPH while the federal government's optional test is done at 35 MPH; the latter is into a solid barrier while the former is essentially into a parked car (actually honeycomb aluminum), making it more like a 20 MPH crash into a solid barrier. Notice that the doors windows of the Pontiac/Toyota are start several inches higher than normal, probably for improved side crash protection.

Personally, I'd buy the Pontiac/Toyota because it's a 4-door hatchback with large cargo capacity, but gas mileage is significantly worse than that of its near twin, the Corolla sedan.

Virtually every front wheel drive car will have a centered fuel tank, but that's not a guarantee of better safety because the tank can be surrounded by sharp edges or bolts.

Be sure that any car you buy hasn't been in a major crash (anything where the chassis was bent, the seatbelt "replace" stickers came out, or an airbag deployed), and check for operation of the airbags through the indicator lamp on the dash (should come on and then turn off -- some dealers remove bulbs to cover up for airbag, ABS, or engine computer problems) because bags are often replaced with padding, either because of collision repair or theft.

It's good that you're relying more on test results than unreliable anecdotes because every crash survivor credits his car, rightly or wrongly, rather than circumstance. On the other hand, it's not possible to evaluate the safety of cars with a high degree of accuracy.

They essentially have.

Are you willing to pay for all that, especially for the small additional margin of protection they would provide? U.S. cars have long been required to withstand rear impacts of 30 MPH without fuel leakage, and most can actually take > 40 MPH.

Forget the Volvo; Volvo's reputation for crash safety is overblown, and the cars aren't that reliable and parts are expensive.

GM has said that about 95% of a car's safety is in its crash avoidance ability, but they also found that most people exploited only half of a vehicle's maneuverability (I have no idea how they defined "half"). The most important crash survival criteria is probably head injury (HIC, Head Impact Criteria, expressed on a points scale), but I don't know what comes next -- chest force, leg force, or side HIC.

Side air bags can be a big help in side crashes. Experts disagree about whether offset or full frontal crash test results are more important, and a car can be designed to do badly in one test yet well in the other, but don't be impressed by the Insurance Institute's claim that their test is done at 40 MPH while the federal government's optional test is done at 35 MPH; the latter is into a solid barrier while the former is essentially into a parked car (actually honeycomb aluminum), making it more like a 20 MPH crash into a solid barrier. Notice that the doors windows of the Pontiac/Toyota are start several inches higher than normal, probably for improved side crash protection.

Personally, I'd buy the Pontiac/Toyota because it's a 4-door hatchback with large cargo capacity, but gas mileage is significantly worse than that of its near twin, the Corolla sedan.

Virtually every front wheel drive car will have a centered fuel tank, but that's not a guarantee of better safety because the tank can be surrounded by sharp edges or bolts.

Be sure that any car you buy hasn't been in a major crash (anything where the chassis was bent, the seatbelt "replace" stickers came out, or an airbag deployed), and check for operation of the airbags through the indicator lamp on the dash (should come on and then turn off -- some dealers remove bulbs to cover up for airbag, ABS, or engine computer problems) because bags are often replaced with padding, either because of collision repair or theft.

It's good that you're relying more on test results than unreliable anecdotes because every crash survivor credits his car, rightly or wrongly, rather than circumstance. On the other hand, it's not possible to evaluate the safety of cars with a high degree of accuracy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That is what I found most troubling about The Diesel's first inquiry. He seems so paranoid about driving in anything, worried about rollovers, gas tanks being punctured, etc. that I fear he'll never *enjoy* a minute of driving. I've been behind a wheel (or in my youth, handlebars) for over 50 years, and although I've had my share of collisions (three in that time) and cracked a couple of ribs in a rollover of a Volkswagen, I've never had a head-on collision, nor a serious T-boning, nor have I ever experienced a fire in an automobile. I venture to say that few of us have. Seat belts, air bags and now side curtains are fine, but to be in constant dread about accidents reminds me of Dustin Hoffman's character in RAIN MAN, who would only fly on Qantas because they were the only airline that never had a fatality. Life is a gamble every day, and you can always slip in the bathtub or accidentally ingest a piece of broken glass or a poisonous substance, but most people survive the gamble every day too. I hope The Diesel gets over his paranoia about auto accidents, and that whatever car he decides on, he can drive it with a smile.

>

That's an important point. I drive my convertible with the top down whenever I can. In a rollover, I'm probably screwed. Still, like Nissan says, I "enjoy the ride". In fact, on a warm day, I look for places to go and try to prolong the ride.

To correct you about Seat's, they are Spanish VW's to be more accurate, as they are owned by VAG (Volkswagen Auto Group) and all their cars used VW frames.

I've been in Portugal, which is the neighbouring country, and no one in my family found it scary to drive there, or be driven around. "Scott in Florida" >

Who said anything about stationary? Very briefly the sequence went as follows. (For those who might not know, in the UK we drive on the left).

1. I was travelling at 70 in the inside lane;
2. Said 4x4 was travelling in outside lane, at something more than 70;
3. Something happened to 4x4 (I never got to ask what) that made it veer violently left;
4. I was in the way;
5. After side impact from 4x4, the Volvo rolled five times, coming to rest in a field some distance off the carriageway;
6. It hurt, but I lived.

Bill

Maybe now...but not when I lived in Spain (early 70's when Franco was dictator).

Seats were Fiats at the time.

Franco imposed a 100% duty on any foreign car imported into Spain at the time. He allowed us American's to import one car of our choice duty free...if we swore we would not sell it to a Spaniard.

SEAT is one of the leading car makers in Spain. It was founded in the year 1950 as subsidiary of Fiat, with an important share of the Spanish Government. After the withdrawal of Fiat, the Volkswagen Group, through its parent company VAG, became in the year 1986 the major shareholder, and in 1990 owner of a 100% of the company.

The acronym "SEAT" means Sociedad Española de Automóviles de Turismo (Spanish Corporation of Private Cars).

Please, while at wikipedia, learn the fine skill of bottom posting:

Ah, interesting thing to know - were they ever there own company? :-). "Scott in Florida" dictator).