| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Most Dangerous Cars in America | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 11 2012, 06:27 AM (710 Views) | |
| George K | Jun 11 2012, 06:27 AM Post #1 |
|
Finally
|
http://247wallst.com/2012/05/29/the-most-dangerous-cars-in-america/2/ The Most Dangerous Cars in America 1. Ram 1500 > Make: Dodge > Bad ratings: side-marginal; rollover-marginal > 2011 sales: 156,983 > Price: $22,120 > JD Power Initial Quality: 2/5 Though Dodge has been offering the half-ton Ram 1500 since 1981, its safety track record has long been unimpressive. From 1998 through 2001, the truck received failing marks from IIHS in frontal offset tests, and was rated “poor” in protecting heads and left legs, as well as in restraining the crash test dummy. Though frontal offset ratings have since received “good” ratings from the IIHS, the vehicle’s side-impact and rollover ratings remain substandard. Curiously, it was the opposite in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests. The agency found fault with the Ram’s performance on frontal impact tests but not with side impact tests. Despite safety concerns, the model has been selling well, and from 2007 to 2011 Dodge sold more than 100,000 trucks each year. 2. Colorado Crew Cab > Make: Chevrolet > Bad ratings: side-poor; rollover-marginal; rear-marginal > 2011 sales: 31,026 > Price: $17,475 > JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5 The Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon crew cab are fundamentally the same light truck made by General Motors (NYSE: GM) with differing cosmetic features. The small pickup performed quite poorly in the IIHS tests, earning a “poor” side-impact grade and “marginal” grades for rollover and rear safety. Sales of the Colorado have been especially poor in recent years; GM sold 75,716 such cars in 2007 and only 31,026 in 2011. Making matters worse, a November, 2011, recall of 5,220 Colorados and Canyons due to seat belt safety concerns did not help either the brand’s sales or its safety record. 3. CX-7 > Make: Mazda > Bad ratings: rollover-marginal; rear-marginal > 2011 sales: 35,641 > Price: $22,190 > JD Power Initial Quality: 4/5 Although it will be replaced by the newer CX-5 model next year, the CX-7’s safety record certainly will not be remembered fondly. Despite “good” scores in front and side impact ratings, low grades in rollover and rear-impact measures go against perceptions that the CX-7 is a safe car to drive. Sales rose from about 20,000 in 2009 to 35,641 in 2011. Still, this is down from 2007 when 42,199 CX-7 cars were sold. 4. CX-9 > Make: Mazda %23 %rollover-marginal; rear-marginal > 2011 sales: 34,421 > Price: $29,725 > JD Power Initial Quality: 4/5 Assembled in Hiroshima, Japan, the Mazda CX-9 received “marginal” scores in both rollover and rear safety ratings. The CX-9 also had the lowest strength-to-weight ratio of all midsize SUVs tested by the IIHS. This ratio measures how much force a car’s roof can handle before it crushes five inches, and then it is divided by the weight of the car. Despite these poor ratings, the number of CX-9s sold increased from 25,484 in 2007 to 34,421 in 2011. 5. Pathfinder > Make: Nissan > Bad ratings: rollover-marginal; rear-marginal > 2011 sales: 25,935 > Price: $29,290 > JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5 The Nissan Pathfinder earned “marginal” ratings in rollover and rear-impact testing from the IIHS. The Pathfinder’s performance in government rollover tests is likewise troubling, as it registered an estimated 20% to 30% risk of rolling over during testing. At a price of $29,290, the cost of a Pathfinder is similar to that of the Mazda CX-9 or the 4-door Jeep Wrangler. According to Edmunds sales figures, both these models have outsold the Pathfinder in the past three years. 6. Wrangler > Make: Jeep > Bad ratings: side-marginal (2-door), side-poor (4-door); rear-marginal (both) > 2011 sales: 122,460 (all Wranglers), 46,803 (2-door), 75,657 (4-door) > Price: $22,970 (2-door), $30,745 (4-door) > JD Power Initial Quality: 3/5 With “marginal” ratings in side and rear-impact protection, the two-door Wrangler joins other SUVs, such as the CX-7, CX-9 and Pathfinder, as a poor performer in IIHS tests. One of the few car models that actually underperforms the two-door Jeep Wrangler is the larger four-door version. This version of the Wrangler also received a “marginal” rear-impact rating, yet was also given a “poor” side-impact rating. During a recent IIHS side-impact test, a dummy was struck by the steel bars supporting the four-door Wrangler’s convertible roof. Both of the models’ overall poor performance stems in part from the fact they were unable to protect the driver’s or back-seat passengers’ heads and other bodily parts in simulated accidents. Despite earning the lowest score of any mid-size SUV from Consumer Reports, the Wrangler still sells especially well with more than 120,000 sold in the U.S. in 2011. 7. SX4 > Make: Suzuki > Bad ratings: rollover-marginal, rear-marginal > 2011 sales: 12,520 > Price: $13,849 > JD Power Initial Quality: 2/5 The least-expensive car on this list, the Suzuki SX4 performed poorly in rollover and rear-test ratings. Among the more than 30 small cars tested by the IIHS, the SX4 was the only small car to receive two scores of “marginal” or “poor” out of four ratings. Similarly, the SX4 also received a “fair” rating, the second-lowest possible, in government side-crash testing. The model’s U.S. sales also have languished, falling from 30,166 in 2008 to 12,520 last year. Michael B. Sauter |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Jun 11 2012, 06:35 AM Post #2 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
I'm #1! I'm #1! I gotta sell that truck. |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 11 2012, 06:59 AM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Maybe Dodge should change the name to Rammed. I'm amazed poorly-rated cars and trucks sell even one unit. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 11 2012, 07:33 AM Post #4 |
|
MAMIL
|
So much for the theory that big trucks are automatically safer. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Kincaid | Jun 11 2012, 07:34 AM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Obviously the higher your center of gravity the better your chances for a roll over accident. I did wonder how they test a pick up in a side impact test. If struck by an average sedan, it would seem the car would tend to submarine under the frame of the truck more so than into the passenger compartment. I can also see, I suppose, that body on frame trucks would tend to have a weaker structure that would allow a higher degree of intrusion into the passenger compartment - as opposed to a unibody car that has to be strong all around like a cage. What is the excuse of the SUV's on the list? I believe that both Mazda's are unibody construction. Are they sacrificing strength in order to save weight in order to get both good mpg ratings and live up to their zoom zoom motto? Edited by Kincaid, Jun 11 2012, 07:35 AM.
|
| Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 11 2012, 07:40 AM Post #6 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I would be interested to compare any of those bottom 7 to the top 20 from 30 years ago. Obviously something will still be the worst or best, but I'd guess that the overall standards have risen significantly since the 80s. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 11 2012, 07:58 AM Post #7 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
With head on crashes if the speed is high enough the laws of physics transcend even today's best safety design. In these crashes mass still dominates the outcome, even with airbags and smart designs that send the engine down onto the street instead of into the chest of the passengers. Visualize this head on collision. A 2 ton vehicle traveling 60 MPH hits a 1 ton vehicle traveling 60 MPH in the opposite direction. They kiss at a combined speed of 120 mph. After they meet they become one moving system. The system will till travel in the direction the 2-ton vehicle was going because more mass moving at the same speed has more inertia. (If both were the same weight the system would not move in either direction after impact.) That means the poor folks in the 1 ton vehicle both stopped AND reversed direction in an instant, subjecting their bodies to much more traumatic impact than the folks in the 2 ton vehicle, who only got slowed down over a comparatively long period of time. |
![]() |
|
| brenda | Jun 11 2012, 09:26 AM Post #8 |
![]()
..............
|
Hmmm ... I'd like to see how the Smart Car and Mini-Cooper fare by comparison. The Smart Car looks like a death trap. |
|
“Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.” ~A.A. Milne | |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Jun 11 2012, 09:46 AM Post #9 |
|
Shortstop
|
Most Dangerous Car in America? Anything driven by Lindsay Lohan (or anyone on this list). http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/07/07/worst-celebrity-drivers.html |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 11 2012, 09:55 AM Post #10 |
|
MAMIL
|
The most important safety component on any car is the nut behind the wheel. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Cathys | Jun 12 2012, 02:54 AM Post #11 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Brenda - I drive a MINI and you'd be surprised. They really address that concern when you are in the showroom, complete with a photo album of customer's that have been in accidents and how the people and car fared. I'm sure a lot of folks' first concern about super small cars is the collision safety - MINI Safety 2012 US News article |
![]() |
|
| DarrenArt | Jun 12 2012, 03:52 AM Post #12 |
|
Newbie
|
I also drive a Mini, I've always understood it to be a safe car! Although it's small, it has great safety features and always fares well in safety tests. |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 12 2012, 04:44 AM Post #13 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
It would seem to me that the crash worthiness of one of these little cars also depends on what you are crashing into. In a contest with a concrete truck with a full load of mix the difference between an SUV and a Mini Cooper might be the diference between a mangled vehicle and something stuck between two of the rear tires. One sounds at least theoretically more survivable than the other. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 12 2012, 04:52 AM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Less mass? Your ass is grass!
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 12 2012, 05:02 AM Post #15 |
|
MAMIL
|
Since we can't choose to have the best type of accident based on the design of our car, the only real statistic that counts is the number of deaths and/or injuries in each type of car. I don't know what the numbers are in this regard, but it seems to me that people tend to choose to believe and disbelieve safety statistics, based on what kind of car they own, or want to own. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jun 12 2012, 06:00 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Yeah, but the Jeep Wrangler just kicks ass, and unlike the others on the list, the Wrangler can be armored up.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 12 2012, 07:52 AM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes and no. Car choice is complex, and safety is only one factor. If it were the only criteria we'd all drive tanks. It is not that I disbelieve safety statistics. It's that I made an informed decision to drive a less-safe vehicle for the other benefits it offers. MPG was very high on my list since I think we are sacrificing our youth in the middle east so we can waste oil driving gas pigs. I still use some gas but I'd rather feel guilty about 1 death instead of 2. Even GWB said something to the effect of, using less gas is patriotic. While the IIHS, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, rates my car's safety very highly I'm well aware in a high speed head-on collision with an SUV all those green boxes don't mean crap. I think IIHS needs another category for mass. Another rant I have is they compare my car to other's in the same category, small cars. Seeing all those green boxes gives a feeling of safety that is misleading. If compared to all cars and trucks the Honda Insight would have more yellow and red boxes. I imagine some motorcycles are safer than others too.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 12 2012, 08:53 AM Post #18 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I upgraded to a Nissan 4x4 Xterra for asset protection. I want that mass on my side. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jun 12 2012, 09:00 AM Post #19 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
As my old boss at the body shop I once worked at used to say, "They never did build them to drive into things." |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jun 12 2012, 09:51 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Well, there IS that! ![]() By the logic of these crash reports, the safest vehicle would be an APC or a tank. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 12 2012, 09:53 AM Post #21 |
|
MAMIL
|
Not the Sherman a/k/a Ronson. It's a little known fact that the Ford Pinto's design was based on a Sherman. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Jun 12 2012, 10:02 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I had a Jr. High science teacher who drove a grape-purple Pinto. OMG, that thing was FUGLY!
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jun 12 2012, 11:09 AM Post #23 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Only Americans can turn a car safety issue into an
|
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 12 2012, 11:11 AM Post #24 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
it has mass appeal. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 12 2012, 11:13 AM Post #25 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
They laws of physics don't apply in Germany? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












6:32 AM Jul 11