Which car for sixteen year old?

Thought you did - until Pearl Harbour!

Reply to
Bonnet Lock
Loading thread data ...

Yes, but not at 16 for God's sake! And only when you are old enough to drive it responsibly and to finance it yourself.

Reply to
Bonnet Lock

Omaha beach? Worse disaster than Dunkirk except for the Yanks turned it around instead of heading home.

But I digress.

Any suggestions for the original question instead of going off on your personal views of children driving?

Reply to
Michael

I don't know what your budget is, but these are some of the vehicles that I consider to be extremely safe(I'm only including the midsize and large safe vehicles in this list, but there are some small safe vehicles out there as well). I've done a lot of research on which vehicles are safe and I've looked at tons of factors such as injury rates, front crash tests, side crash tests, front offset crash tests, rollover resistance measurements, braking, reputation, etc. These are just a few of the vehicles that I would consider EXTREMELY Safe. All the vehicles I've included have either standard or optional Side Air Bags, and you should always get vehicles with Side Air Bags whenever possible since I read that 52% of all traffic deaths happen in side impacts even though side impacts only make up about 1/4th of all accidents. Anyway here's the list.

2001 or Newer Volvo S80

2002 or Newer Lexus ES300/ES330

2004 Acura TSX

2002 or newer Saab 9-5

2004 Chrysler Pacifica

2002 or newer Acura MDX

2003 or newer Honda Pilot

2004 or newer Volvo XC90

There are several other safe vehicles as well, but these are just the ones I included in this post.

There are 2 other factors that people really don't test or pay enough attention to, but I consider these factors to be pretty important as well.

1 factor is fuel tank placement(the safest place for a car's fuel tank is ahead of the rear axle). Some cars such as Mustangs, Crown Victoras, etc have the fuel tank behind the rear axle, the Pinto also had the fuel tank behind the rear axle.

The other major really important factor that is undertested is how strong the roof is on a vehicle. I saw a rollover crash test comparison on the Discovery Science Channel of a Volvo XC90 SUV vs a Ford F-150, and the Volvo's roof was like a tanks and it had incredible structural integrity and it could have withstood even several times the force and weight that it withstood during the test. The F-150s roof on the other hand was like it was made of tinfoil, it was crushed like a paper cup under the weight of the F-150 when it was upside down.

Reply to
The Diesel

Amen to that. We live in area not served by public transporation. If my kid...six months away from driving...needs to go anywhere...we get to drive. Once licensed, we can reduce our chauffer time. I chose a 10 year old 960 for her. Possibly overpowered, but uber-safe with room for stuff (stuff equals guitar/amp). She's tired of being shlepped around by her parents, and we are ready to add her to the mix of options for getting her to the places she needs to be. She's an excellent student, and understands the consquences of irresponsibility with an automobile...worst of all, will be the return to being hauled around by parents.

Reply to
libertyroad

The 960, while maybe a little overwhelming for a novice driver to control that much power to the rear wheels, will make her a better driver. She will have to learn to really manipulate the throttle properly when it rains and snows. And it will bring confidence when having to merge into traffic, not the usual fear that most young drivers have (the 960's have fantastic visibility too, so merging is even easier).

I was 16 when I started off driving our 960 and I never drove it into a ditch or anything bad. Our ratty, 100 horsepower VW got me into more trouble then the Volvo ever did - I never crashed it, but it was more fun to drive, so it encouraged learning bad habits. With a car like the 960, I felt like I should act the part, drive the responsible looking and feeling car, responsibly.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

'91-'93 240 would be a good one, might want to seriously consider a wagon as they've got a ton of space in the back. For something a bit more modern looking a 740 or 940 of similar vintage is also an excellent car. Just avoid any that have the V6. All the 4's, and the later inline 6's are fine, but the V6 is not nearly such a sure bet. I'm also quite partial to Saab 900's, nearly as much space as a Volvo wagon, fairly comfortable, fairly safe, and arguably a bit nicer to drive. Both are somewhat quirky cars with a lot more personality than the average econo-box.

Reply to
James Sweet

Radical snipping

Any BMW's make your list? TIA

Reply to
Michael

Well, the problem is that the people who do crash tests have limited funds so they usually test the more average priced and most popular vehicles. I suspect that many cars such as the Lexus LS430, BMW 7 Series and Audi A8 are in the same league as the Volvo S80 or better, but unfortunately there's really insufficient data to determine how safe those luxury cars are. They do have sufficient data on the newer BMW 3 series though, and the problem with that car was that it only got 3 out of 5 stars in the side impact crash test for the front seat occupants, and the data basically said that there would be a high likelyhood of pelvic injury in a side impact crash for people sitting in the front seats. Here's a link.

formatting link
The BMW X5 did pretty good in the other tests, but it only got 3 stars in the rollover resistance test.
formatting link
I think almost all the newer BMWs do great in the front offset crash test, and I wouldn't worry about a front crash in a BMW, but I'm not so sure about how well they'd do in a side impact since very few BMWs have been tested in the side impact crash test and the 3 series that was tested didn't do well in the side impact crash test.

If you have no choice but to get a BMW, then in my opinon based on an educated guess, I'd guess that the 7 series is the safest BMW, and the

5 series is the 2nd safest.

The 2000-2002 BMW 7 series did have a pretty good injury rate(twice as good as the average car) and better than the Volvo S80 and the Saab

9-5 sedan.

The 2000-20002 BMW 5 series had a slightly better injury rate than the Volvo S80 and slightly worse than the Saab 9-5 sedan. There's a whole bunch of info about injury rates at the link below.

formatting link
Don't forget to try and get a car with side air bags.

At this link you can see results for various BMWs in various different kinds of tests, and as you can see, they just don't crash test most BMWs enough to get much data about them. The lack of data about side impact results is the most frustrating thing since side impact protection is very important because the majority of traffic deaths happen in side impacts.

formatting link

Reply to
The Diesel

Yea, the kids I mentioned in the original post that were killed went in two different ways...side impact or flipping an SUV.

Reply to
Michael

Before buying any Volvo, do a Google search. Like, "Volvo S80 problem", that should, to say the least, open your eyes and not your wallet. Another good search is "Volvo 240 crash".

Saty away from the new ones, since 1999. Of the old ones, the 240, preferrably a '93, is unbeattable for common sense safety. ABS, air bags are real nice, but if it boost your confidence about how safe you are and you end up taking more risks, than you are not better off.

Turbos have often been abused by their owners and will cost you a lot more dough to fix and maintain. Non-turbo 240s with Bosch platinum plugs and hi-grade fuel will give you a nice kick, in particular if you floor the gas. :-)

740 and 940 have the same engine than the '93 240. Just slightly more modern in equipments and trim. Also, the '93 240 was the first 240 with air bag for driver and A/C using the "modern" gas.

The 850 are front wheel and because everything is so packed under the hood, it always cost more to fix than 240/740/940.

The 760 is a very nice car, if you can find one. I know, I had one. It was my only Volvo with a turbo.

960/S90 are super cool, but parts are pricey. Forget any prior to '96. The best is the '98, the last year of the rear wheel drive, the last year of the true Volvo and the last produced under Volvo ownership.

I've had many 240s in my lifeand they are unbeattable for common sense safety. Still have one, a '93 :-)

For teenagers, I would get the safest car possible and make it cool. Like tainted window (so they can ... in the car without being seen), as well as a premium sound system. Make sure the sound system is not one of those that can be stolen and installed in another car. Otherwise it won't last long. I had one stolen in one of my 240s. Fuc**** dumb thief was not smart enough to use a piece of metal to easily unlocjk the door. He broke the window frame, broke the window and damaged the dashboard. I replaced it with one with a front plate detachable. Never had a theft since and it makes 4 years I have it.

H>Dear Group,

Reply to
Nobody

Thanks, didn't know that tidbit.

Just spent almost 4k getting my 97 960 back on the road.

This is for my DAUGHTER!!!

Reply to
Michael

Like I said, give her a bicycle - and you'll avoid *that* danger, and keep her fit!

P.S. I like the use of "tainted". He probably meant tinted, but tainted says it all!

Reply to
Bonnet Lock

I reread your original post and I realized that your budget is $5000. Frankly, I don't think you can get 5 star side impact protection in a used car for less than about $7000. You can still get some pretty safe cars with 4 star side impact protection for $5000 though, like you can probably get a very high milage 1998/1999 Volkswagen Passat with Side Air Bags standard or a

1995-1997 Volvo 850 with optional Side Air Bags. It's not a BMW, but at least it's German, maybe that's worth something. The Passat was named one of the 5 safest cars of all time in 2001. Here are some crash test results for the Passat
formatting link
The 1998/1999 Passats were never crash tested in side impacts, but I'd think that they're the same structurally as the 2000 Passat that was tested.
formatting link
Here are the results for the 2004 Passat in the rollover test, I'd think that the 1998/1999 Passat would have the same rollover resistance rating.
formatting link
Here's the injury rate for the 2000-2002 Passat(100 is average and the lower the rate the better)
formatting link

Here are some crash test results for the Volvo 850

formatting link
Here's the death rate for the Volvo 850(89 is average and the lower the number the better).
formatting link
Here's the injury rate for the Volvo 850(100 is average and the lower the number the better).
formatting link
There's just one thing about the Volvo 850 that has me slightly concerned about it. The 1998 Volvo S70 didn't do too well in the European Front Offset Crash test, and the Volvo S70 is essentially very similar if not identical to the Volvo 850 structurally. Here's the test I'm talking about.
formatting link
The 850 did however do great in the IIHS front offset crash test, so maybe the European test of the S70 really doesn't matter.
formatting link

Reply to
The Diesel
[Nobody] (Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:54:22 GMT):

Not changed, checked, if I recall correctly..

Reply to
Svein Tore Sølvik

Not quite. Up until Volvo Corp sold its car division to Ford, Volvo was recommending to change the air bag after 10 years. AFAIK, the technology was new and in Volvo's best judgement, it was safe to use an air bag for a period of 10 years. Naturally, ownership and management are now with Ford.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the air bag not deploying when needed. What REALLY concern me, is the deployment of the bag at random. It has happened at least once. The person posted his story somewhere on the net.

If I recall correctly, the car involved was a 740 and was more than 10 yr old. The daughter opened the driver door, sat on the seat and started the car. The bag deployed and got the daughter to hospital. I think nothing was broken, but it was apparently very bloody...

Here's something I just found on the net after Googling.

"Air Bag Lifetime. [Query:] Airbag-SRS needs a check after 10 years.

[Response:Bob] Volvo's intent for the 10 year SRS service (as indicated on the sticker) was to replace the air bag and check the system for faults via the SRS diagnostic conector. The bag replacement interval was extended to 15 years. If the SRS light comes on with key in run position and goes out after approximately 10 seconds or at engine start, all is well. The bag replacement and fault check can be a DIY job but I strongly urge you to leave this to trained technician. The major portion of the costs incurred will be for parts anyway."

It's your life, not mine, you may do as you please.

Reply to
Nobody

They have revised the life of the airbags upwards to 15 years so your label can be altered to read 2008.

Cheers, Peter.

Reply to
Peter Milnes
[Nobody] (Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:42:12 GMT):

I'm not concerned.. One out of how many airbags made for volvo?

Reply to
Svein Tore Sølvik

Sure you are not concerned, your air bag is less than 10 yrs old! Eh! Eh!

Reply to
Nobody

Revision took place under Ford ownership and management.

Found On Road, Dead!

;-)

Reply to
Nobody

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.