Car Safety

[gator of kana]

I think Japan makes the best safe cars in the world besides Germany. well there's my opinion let's hear yours

 

[V1P3R]

Definitely China. Duh!

 

[MagpieRacer]

France and Germany make the safest imo.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I would say Europe but I don't really read much on safety, so I really can't say.

 

[forza2.0]

the french car companies scam those ncap or whatever they are called test. Therefore the tests are currently going into a major overhaul to combat this.

Germany and sweden are top dogs. Honda are good also. Have insufficient knowledge on the rest.

oh and europe isnt a country.

 

[benzoboy]

Europe isn't a country.

But I think Sweden does, Volvo safety records ftw.

Don't forget Renault. Even though they're French.

 

[Philly]

I'd say Japan. Aren't crash standards a reason lots of European cars aren't sold over here? And the Japanese seem to be king of "safe and economical" here.

 

[homeforsummer]

the french car companies scam those ncap or whatever they are called test. Therefore the tests are currently going into a major overhaul to combat this.

That's an incredibly, incredibly ignorant thing to say. Companies like Renault spend millions of Euros just researching real crashes around Europe (in exactly the same way that traditionally safe companies like Saab and Volvo do) and build cars that not only survive well in controlled crash tests but also real life crashes. The rumour that the cars work in only the sorts of controlled crashes in the NCAP tests is just something spread by naysayers who don't believe that a company can be putting that much effort into safety.

Ford use Volvo's safety centre to test their cars (and I expect other makes under Ford's wing use the Volvo facilities too) and you presume that many other companies make use of similar facilities.

As for the original question...

It's hard to pick which countries make the safest cars as different countries around the world use different testing standards too. I expect that some of the American crash test standards are quite high but I don't know the exact tests they do so it's hard to compare with Euro NCAP's tests. Given that there is a higher proportion of larger cars in the States, on average they're probably safer than the smaller cars made in Europe.

Much as 5 stars for a Renault Twingo is impressive, for example, it's still only a very small car so put it in an accident with a much larger 3-star car, for example, and it'd still likely come off worse. The trouble with the star rating is that it doesn't easily take into account the relative sizes of vehicles (and obviously, you couldn't realistically crash every single car against every other car to determine a level base for testing).

I'm not voting on the poll though, as the choice of countries is a little limited and the tests done are different across the globe. That and including China is worthy of mirth given it's past record for car safety...

Aren't crash standards a reason lots of European cars aren't sold over here?

They are, but that's because the testing standards are quite different and give ratings based on different tests. You probably find that a portion of American cars wouldn't pass Euro standards either.

 

[Famine]

They are, but that's because the testing standards are quite different and give ratings based on different tests. You probably find that a portion of American cars wouldn't pass Euro standards either.

Like the Chrysler Voyager (Plymouth/Dodge Caravan) which scored a stunning 0% in EuroNCAP front impact test.

oh and europe isnt a country.

Europe isn't a country.

Neither is America...

 

[forza2.0]

They are, but that's because the testing standards are quite different and give ratings based on different tests. You probably find that a portion of American cars wouldn't pass Euro standards either.

and yet you defend the likes of renaults ncap record.

Either a car is safe or its not. The fact that a car is considered extremely safe by one organisation but yet unsafe by another proves that certain manufacturers engineer their cars for the test procedures and less so on real life.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Long vid but gets the point over, real life situation, head on collision, closing speed of 80mph, Renault comes off looking like you would survive, looking like a 5 star safety car.


Incredible crash test, again showing Renault, hitting a tree at 55mph, not a bad outcome.


Discovery V Espace, again displaying the strength of the Renaults in a real situaiton.

 

[homeforsummer]

and yet you defend the likes of renaults ncap record.

I am quite sure that Renault could score very well in American tests. The reason they aren't sold over there isn't for safety reasons, it's for financial and marketing reasons. In the past, Euro and US tests have been very different - for a good while US tests were much more stringent. Now Euro tests are more like that too.

I am saying that categorically, Renaults are safe. What you did is posted unsubstantiated tosh that French cars "cheated" the system.

Either a car is safe or its not. The fact that a car is considered extremely safe by one organisation but yet unsafe by another proves that certain manufacturers engineer their cars for the test procedures and less so on real life.

The only specific car mentioned that hasn't met both sets of tests is the Voyager, and that's one of few that's faced both sets of tests.

 

[forza2.0]

Crashtest Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500



The German ADAC conducted a crash test that involved a large SUV, the Audi Q7 and a mini, the Fiat 500. The results of the test say that, even if the small car has a very good safety rating, there are very little chances of survival for the passengers of the small car.

Even if the EuroNCAP results for the Fiat 500 were confirmed, ADAC measured very high stresses on the passenger during the crash. The head and knee airbags were overwhelmed. The airbag for the driver can cause an impact with the A-pillar and it doesn't offer protection for the chest impact. This is due to the fact the it fires too late to prevent injury. In the case of this crash, if there were two children in the back of the Fiat 500, they wouldn't have survived.

On the other hand, the risk for the passengers in the Audi Q7 are very low.


The 500 did very well in that test, afterall it did crash into a Q7.

I am saying that categorically, Renaults are safe. What you did is posted unsubstantiated tosh that French cars "cheated" the system.

Which car would you rather be in, when in a crash.

Megane or 3 series?

Clio or the now elderly polo?

There was an article infact about how the french manufacturers were designing their cars to do well on the test, how else would I be able to single out the frenchies? I will have a look for said article.

 

[daan]

Crashtest Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500
Which car would you rather be in, when in a crash.

So the bigger car comes out better? Really? That's amazing. I never would have thought that.

Which car would you rather be in, when in a crash.

Megane or 3 series?

Clio or the now elderly polo?

At least pick 2 cars in the same class, and 2 cars of the same age, if you want to make a fair comparison.

 

[forza2.0]

A similiar test to that of the 500 vs Q7.



This is the first gen smart car vs a s-class. The occupants in the smart car came off better than those in the 500 even though the smart car as no real crumple zone.

In the case of the smart, it has a small crumble-zone, however if you enter the car you'll see the dash is very far from the seat. In case of crash, the crumble zone takes a part of the energy (against a car it's a bit harder so that it enters the crumble-sone of the adversary car). Given the fact that no motor is on the front, all the crumble-zone can be used with no risk that the motor would enter the passenger-cell.

But thing is, in a smart, the passenger-cell is very strong, but the steering wheel retracts and then the seats will move forwards, to reduce the deceleration of the passengers! Thus the car has a way better safety that you can think by looking at it.

The safety concept of the Fiat looks very much EuroNCAP-oriented...

So the bigger car comes out better? Really? That's amazing. I never would have thought that.

Not about which car comes out better, its about keeping the occupants alive, as the smart car has managed.

 

[Jim Prower]

It's pretty difficult to say. I'd say G.M. probably tops the list for American companies, Volvo for Europe, Toyota for Japan, and China...are you joking?

 

[forza2.0]

Long vid but gets the point over, real life situation, head on collision, closing speed of 80mph, Renault comes off looking like you would survive, looking like a 5 star safety car.

I have to say that is not bad at all for a 80mph impact. Wonder how it would stand up to something more modern though, or on rollover, or hitting a wall.

 

[homeforsummer]

Crashtest Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500

The German ADAC conducted a crash test that involved a large SUV, the Audi Q7 and a mini, the Fiat 500. The results of the test say that, even if the small car has a very good safety rating, there are very little chances of survival for the passengers of the small car.

What? What the hell are you even on about? I even said myself in a previous post that NCAP results don't take into account differences in the size of different cars so can't be compared one to another.

What possible relevance did everything you posted have to how safe Renaults are?

Which car would you rather be in, when in a crash.

Megane or 3 series?

What car would you rather be in in a crash? BMW 3 series or Hummer H2?

See the relevance? Yeah, there isn't any

There was an article infact about how the french manufacturers were designing their cars to do well on the test, how else would I be able to single out the frenchies? I will have a look for said article.

I've seen articles like that before and I can safely say they're a big pile of a particularly censorable word. As I mentioned before, and will now repeat, Renault are one of many manufacturers, both French or otherwise, who spend millions researching real life accidents and incorporating their findings into the design of their crash structures.

The sort of articles you mention are written by people suspicious of any French manufacturer's ability to make safe cars given that historically the Swedes and the Germans have led the way in that respect.

The fact of the matter is that no current European, American or Australasian car company dare release a car that's unsafe, much less then advertise the fact that it is safe. You can bet that if every person who crashed a modern Renault died it would be all over the news that the cars weren't as safe as they seemed. As I haven't heard of it so far, I can only assume that the cars are safe, given that bad news usually travels quicker than good news.

 

[forza2.0]

What? What the hell are you even on about? I even said myself in a previous post that NCAP results don't take into account differences in the size of different cars so can't be compared one to another.

The passengers in the smart would have survived the s-class impact. The 500 passengers wouldnt. The 500 got 4 or 5 ncap stars did it not?

 

[homeforsummer]

You compared the 500 to an Audi Q7 (large 4x4) and the smart to an S-class (saloon).

Much of the mass in the Q7 is higher up than the S-class - regardless of the extra inertia an S-class has over a smart, it's still a "regular" car, and all the energy displaced from the impact goes straight through the smart's safety cell.

In the Q7 versus 500 crash, the city car now has to face an impact with a much taller (and heavier) vehicle than the S-class. The engine and safety structure in the Q7 is much higher, so it's going to strike the Fiat in a different way and with more force thanks to it's extra mass.

So again, I ask the relevance of posting it? I'm sure if there were examples of the 500 vs. S-class and smart vs. Q7 the outcome would have looked more in the 500's favour. To say passengers in a 500 vs. S-class impact wouldn't survive is pure speculation based on watching a 500 crash into a vehicle much taller and heavier than an S-class. You could have come to the same conclusion watching it strike a lorry and it would have been just as irrelevant.

 

[daan]

What was the impact speeds of both tests?

Where are the results of both tests?

The Q7 is heavier and higher than the S-class, so it will do more damage.

EDIT: And what he said ^

And would you rather be in a Golf or a Leon?

 

[Jondot]

Hmm, it's difficult to say. It used to be Volvo, then Renault, but I think everyone has sort of caught up with each other a bit. Except China, obviously.

the french car companies scam those ncap or whatever they are called test.

The German ADAC conducted a crash test that involved a large SUV, the Audi Q7 and a mini, the Fiat 500. The results of the test say that, even if the small car has a very good safety rating, there are very little chances of survival for the passengers of the small car.

Even if the EuroNCAP results for the Fiat 500 were confirmed, ADAC measured very high stresses on the passenger during the crash. The head and knee airbags were overwhelmed. The airbag for the driver can cause an impact with the A-pillar and it doesn't offer protection for the chest impact. This is due to the fact the it fires too late to prevent injury. In the case of this crash, if there were two children in the back of the Fiat 500, they wouldn't have survived.

On the other hand, the risk for the passengers in the Audi Q7 are very low.


The 500 did very well in that test, afterall it did crash into a Q7.



Which car would you rather be in, when in a crash.

Megane or 3 series?

Clio or the now elderly polo?

There was an article infact about how the french manufacturers were designing their cars to do well on the test, how else would I be able to single out the frenchies? I will have a look for said article.

A similiar test to that of the 500 vs Q7.


This is the first gen smart car vs a s-class. The occupants in the smart car came off better than those in the 500 even though the smart car as no real crumple zone.

In the case of the smart, it has a small crumble-zone, however if you enter the car you'll see the dash is very far from the seat. In case of crash, the crumble zone takes a part of the energy (against a car it's a bit harder so that it enters the crumble-sone of the adversary car). Given the fact that no motor is on the front, all the crumble-zone can be used with no risk that the motor would enter the passenger-cell.

But thing is, in a smart, the passenger-cell is very strong, but the steering wheel retracts and then the seats will move forwards, to reduce the deceleration of the passengers! Thus the car has a way better safety that you can think by looking at it.

The safety concept of the Fiat looks very much EuroNCAP-oriented...



Not about which car comes out better, its about keeping the occupants alive, as the smart car has managed.

, I love this guy...

 

[Duke]

I think Japan makes the best safe cars in the world besides Germany. well there's my opinion let's hear yours

Opinions mean a heck of a lot more when they are backed up some reasoning and factual information.

 

[gator of kana]

Opinions mean a heck of a lot more when they are backed up some reasoning and factual information.

I don't feel like proving anything this time, having information backed up on an opinion is certain no no to me

 

[buickgnx88]

Well there has to be some reason why you think Japan's cars are the safest.

 

[gator of kana]

well every car there makes good ratings

 

[Jondot]

well every car there makes good ratings

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/nissan_navara/317.aspx

 

[gator of kana]

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/nissan_navara/317.aspx

europeans set too high standards

 

[buickgnx88]

Excuses excuses. When it comes to safety, wouldn't it be better to have the standards high?

 

[gator of kana]

Sometimes it is