All 3 major TV news channels reported this in their evening news
tonight: the Acura TL came out on top with Volvo S60 in the latest
partial frontal crash tests.
Because some of you stated before that the Acura models are
esentially Honda models with more expensive look and feel. So, I wonder
which Honda model corresponds to the Acura TL.
Accord, esp w 6-cylinder engines but probably all have basically the
same front framework, afaik.
I've been watching the Mercedes and others for years moving the front
wheels to the very corner of the bodywork, where any accident is going
to bend the suspension. And now, it turns out, the driver, too.
A lot of the tiny cars are going to suffer from this as well, the
Fiats and Mini-Coopers. Have to get a hundred pounds of steel out
ahead of the tires old-school. Not sure how even the Civics are going
to do on this kind of test.
Afraid of what? I'm a little afraid of corner-collisions, and that
zippy-looking but probably ill-advised design is one of about 50,000
reasons I don't buy the Merc or even cheaper models with the same
I don't know that it's a huge safety problem but it has to be a fairly
large insurance problem, a relatively minor collision is going to make
the care unrepairable, unless the frame has replaceable sections which
I strongly doubt.
you're falling for the bull injection dude. go to a junkyard. look at
some crashed cars. the ones you see [frod, g.m.] with collapsed
passenger cells, those are the ones to avoid. the ones you see getting
all f'ed up all over but that keep an intact passenger cell, they're the
ones you want. ignore all this "insurance rating" f[r]iction.
regarding any mercedes fud, the fact is, germans are experts at high
speed crashes. especially late at night on country roads when they've
been drinking. german cars are consequentially very good in real world
crash performance. all this b.s. about more and more esoteric ways of
"testing" cars so they end up getting heavier and heavier is merely the
back-door means by which the oilco's manage to keep consumption high
when improving engine efficiency would otherwise be starving their sorry
oh, and don't forget the dirty little secret of the "safer" car world -
a 3500lb car on a set of 225 wide tires has a much longer stopping
distance than a 2300lb car on the same size tires. all this extra
weight is /increasing/ crash propensity because of poorer
maneuverability and longer stopping distances.
I seem to remember seeing a photo awhile back; left side is Ford pickup
with seriously bent passenger cell (you could tell the driver would have
taken a hurting), right side is Smart car with destroyed front but
unbent passenger cell complete with functioning door, looked like the
passenger would have walked away.
The point of the photo was to show that just because you have a bunch of
mass around you, that doesn't mean you're safe--nor does lack of mass
mean you're unsafe. It's all in the engineering.
the pic you're thinking of is probably this one:
frod have a bunch of very smart and very capable engineers with all the
computer modeling horsepower they need to build whatever they want, and
have had so for decades. the problem is that frod's policy in crash
survival is that they want the frame to fail because it ensures the
vehicle is unrepairable and thus they get to sell a new one. they
design it so that the "crumple zone" complies with the absolute bare
legal minimum, and no more. any further deformation takes place outside
the crumple zone, and that starts to extend into other parts of the
frame. oh, and trucks don't have to comply with the same level of
passenger safety regulations as cars, so as they're not required to,
Yeah, I still don't believe that in the least. What I suspect you
have there are some side-by-side tests where the vehicles were run
into walls, certainly not into each other. Show me the readouts for
the crash test dummies in each.
If Ford is building big trucks out of recycled toothpaste tubes, well,
I wouldn't be shocked. And I suppose having a strong passenger
compartment is in general a better thing than not. But you need a
bunch of crashable, crushable mass in front of you, or else you're
just running into a wall with no cushion, which isn't much fun either.
The physics of the collision won't go away, the energy to decelerate
you has to go somewhere.
Yes I want safe, but repairable matters too, and a lot more often, and
all day long to my insurance company. Though frankly you probably pay
a bigger theft premium on the Merc than repairability.
what's not to "believe"?
and of course, they're crashed into solid objects not each other. how
else do you think these so-called "safety" tests get to ruin otherwise
perfectly good cars so that their manufacturers have to make them
heavier and heavier so they suck more gas?
no, they make them out of steel, but they design the frame to have
stress concentrations that exceed yield at very low impact speeds. it's
"good for business" to have frames that irreparably bend because the
customer blames themselves and frod get to sell a new vehicle, or at
least, parts for another used one and then someone else buys a new one.
come to a junkyard with me some time and i'll show you where and how
the failure points get designed in. when you see where they choose to
put them, as opposed to the other locations that would achieve the same
energy absorption objectives, but not ruin the frame in the same way,
and you'll understand when i say this is deliberate corporate "profit
before consumer safety" engineering.
energy = force x distance moved. but if the [yield] force is low,
distance moved isn't going to save you. small and well designed beats
big and "poorly" [read: with the company's financial interests, not the
consumer's safety in mind"] designed any day.
all true, but if the vehicle is small there's no distance to help soak
up energy, so the force ends up transmitted to the contents even if
perfectly designed. no doubt it's better than being smashed or
speared, but it's still gonna hurt, and seeing the uncrushed passenger
compartment that may be easy to forget.
to some extent you're right, BUT, you don't need a lot of distance to
absorb this stuff. you only need a few milliseconds worth of
deformation. 6 m/s of impact velocity and 60cm of deformable distance
is 100ms of passenger deceleration time. that's a LOT.
bottom line, you have plenty of room for the crumple zone. it's
therefore much more important that the passenger cell doesn't deform.
intrusion into the passenger cell, as per the frod, is where heads,
femurs, pelvises get broken.
A lot of that has to do with regulations. Half the cars in Europe cannot be
sold here in any case because they don't meet American safety regulations,
and the expected market isn't big enough to justify the cost of compliance.
Remember that the European market itself is entirely shaped by their own
regulations, which have the effect of making that market's cars a lot
smaller than they otherwise might be. And small cars tend to be a hard sell
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.