« New Radio Search Engine | Main | DSP Portable Radio Shootout on the SWLing Post »

January 31, 2014

Comments

Angelo

Yes, I read that the only "acceptable" safety ratings for one of these subcompacts was the Chevy Spark. Funny----my '79 Chevy Monza was considered "sub-compact" back when it was built. Exterior dimensions today are more like a mid-sized. I don't consider the Honda Fit class "subcompact" I consider it a mini/micro car. When my wife was pregnant with our son, we bought a new Saab 9-5 wagon (2004). I still have that car and still love it---built like a vault---supreme safety for its size. Too bad they're not selling Saabs in the U.S. any longer----hopefully they'll come back some day. I think the Ford Fusion has a decent safety rating too----might be worth a look. Ditto, some of the Subarus. If I were looking for a new car today----I'd consider the Kias----Sorrento, Sportage, Optima, Forte 5 Door.

Dan

Here's a better question: are the cars built to pass the test, or are they built for safety (and happen to pass the test)? Volvo's approach has been the later for as long as I can remember.

herculodge

I had a Volvo. Safe car, but it was always in the shop. Constant engine light indication. I feel snake bit.

Angelo

Dan: The insurance institute tests try to simulate real world crashes. No doubt that Volvos were and are safe cars. But I talk to people in Sweden and they are convinced that Saabs were built at least to the same safety standard as Volvo----but sadly, Saab in the U.S. marketed the cars as performance sedans instead of safe family vehicles. As a result, they were made to compete with BMW/Audi or luxury cars like Mercedes----while they should have been competing with Mercury, Volvo, Buick (though GM owned them for a long time), higher priced Japanese cars, etc.---a marketing error. Anyway, when we bought our Saab, we were really targeting Volvo but people we talked to who owned both pushed us to the Saab for the reasons Jeff gave---constant mechanical issues with the Volvo and relative reliability with the Saab. After 9 1/2 years with my Saab, I have zero serious problems to report. I like the Kia/Hyundai current offerings----because while they're no longer super affordable (their price has crept up) they actually offer better than ever value---decent safety ratings and a 5 year bumper to bumper warranty (two years longer than most of the others) and a 10 year powertrain warranty (twice as long as most others). And provided you do the services, they do cover the repairs----a really nice benefit if you keep your cars a long time, which I do.

Gary

The 2014 Accord Sport got a good rating in all five crash tests, including the small overlap front test.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/accord-4-door/2014

The Infiniti G didn't fare nearly as well as the Accord.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/infiniti/g

herculodge

Thanks, Gary. I'll show my wife Carrie those links. Jeff

Angelo

Also, I'm willing to bet that a 2014 Accord Sport will cost less to own (insurance, maintenance, repairs) than a pre-owned Infiniti. Not as much fun to drive, not as many toys----but rock solid reliability from the Honda.

Dan

Angelo, all I'm saying is that one should look critically at the crash tests and what they attempt to simulate. The classic "frontal collision test" is rather unusual when you step back and look at it: they ram a car into a wall, and a sturdy one at that. When's the last time someone drove straight into a wall? And one that didn't have some give/collapse upon impact?

I understand they attempt to simulate a real world crash, and that it gives you a level field to compare, but as of a few years ago the tests were stuck in the past. Basically every new car earned a perfect rating, leading to the addition of pedestrian collision tests and the offset frontal. Suddenly a lot of cars didn't fare too well. If a car is safe, it should protect its occupants almost regardless of the circumstances (see my above comment about the old-school frontal test).

At any rate, Volvo's whole safety selling point still works for them, even if everyone else has largely caught up and adopted a similar methodology. I still think my original question is something one should think about, even if the answer is unknowable.

The fact still remains that modern cars are incredibly safe. My buying decisions for vehicles don't even take crash test ratings into consideration partially because of that. Full disclosure: I am unmarried and have no children, so matters of practicality are absent from my car buying rationale, therefore letting performance and looks take over. It might also be connected with my watch collection.

Angelo

Dan: I agree. But there are different tests performed by different organizations----and I read that this particular test (the subcompacts) was better than the others at simulating real world driving/accidents. But your point is well taken---and when I buy a new vehicle, I look at a lot of different factors in combination to make my choice. One thing that is often overlooked by people is passive safety vs. active safety. My 1993 BMW 325i is an example of a car, in my opinion, with incredible active safety for the time it was built. I don't know what the crash ratings were on that car----but I know that when I am driving that car, I have a much better chance at avoiding an accident in the first place because the car handles exceptionally well, brakes on a dime and can accelerate out of a mess too. Now, none of that holds true for snow/ice covered roads because it's horrible on snow. Luckily, I have 3 other vehicles of my own and also a full time company car. I have five vehicles to choose from at any given time and often pick based on where I'm going/what I'm doing.

Dan

Ha, BMW 3-series owner here too. Yes, the predictable handling and good visibility really help me drive defensively. Sometimes I fear that my car's exceptional braking will lead to someone ELSE hitting me.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Advertisements






  • Advertisements
My Photo

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

Advertisements






  • Advertisements

October 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Blog powered by Typepad

Pages

Companion Website: Breakthrough Writer

My Photo

Become a Fan