Anyone know the NHTSA CRASH TEST RATING?
- Thread starter Turbo Habanero
- Start date
Doesn't appear the NHTSA has those ratings for our cars:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/queryvehicle.aspx
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/queryvehicle.aspx
I was watching one of the early episodes of top gear and they were talking about it so I was curious.
But honestly were do you think the supra would rank in at ?
But honestly were do you think the supra would rank in at ?
te72;1785504 said:12.
Seriously. 12 stars. These things were designed before occupant safety was the #1 priority, which is why I've seen our cars ROYALLY put the hurt on newer cars.
Not something you want to find out though...
Crash rating are for passenger survivability not the car . New cars crush like tin cans so the passenger absorbs little energy.
I remember reading that Mk3's weren't too bad for occupant safety but were killers for pedestrians...
Moral to this is stay inside the car
Moral to this is stay inside the car
Meh, its more fun to do the running over anyway...IJ.;1785566 said:I remember reading that Mk3's weren't too bad for occupant safety but were killers for pedestrians...
Moral to this is stay inside the car
-AM3
Yeah, I know. *grumbles something about the health & safety people ruining cars for the people that actually like them for the sake of the sheep that don't...*mecevans;1785563 said:
You know, I was always raised to stay out of the road unless it's safe to cross... Dunno about the rest of us, but pedestrian safety always seemed a strange idea to me. :dunno:IJ.;1785566 said:I remember reading that Mk3's weren't too bad for occupant safety but were killers for pedestrians...
Moral to this is stay inside the car
The outer crash zones on newer cars are the part that generally crushes up easily, but the cabin is designed not to. That's the plan anyway.
Older cars like ours usually stay together and look like they did fine, but do weird things like stuff the engine into your legs or kill you from blunt force trauma.
Older cars like ours usually stay together and look like they did fine, but do weird things like stuff the engine into your legs or kill you from blunt force trauma.
Honestly I don't think the MK3 would do well in higher-speed collisions. They are heavy and the weight is spread out. I can see the passenger compartment buckling in a head-on...
However, slower more minor crashes, other newer cars would get the worst of it with their 'crumple' zones. Rigidity is only good for the passenger compartment alone when it comes to occupancy survivability. The idea is to transfer the least amount of energy/force onto the passengers as possible while preventing the passenger compartment from collapsing. That is the way all new cars are designed. The less a car crumples, the more energy/force is transferred to you inside, which is not good for you...lol
I'm sure many of you have seen clips of older/larger cars crashing into newer/smaller cars. The survivability is MUCH higher in the newer cars. Engineering ftw.
However, that's not gonna stop me from driving and enjoying my supra.
However, slower more minor crashes, other newer cars would get the worst of it with their 'crumple' zones. Rigidity is only good for the passenger compartment alone when it comes to occupancy survivability. The idea is to transfer the least amount of energy/force onto the passengers as possible while preventing the passenger compartment from collapsing. That is the way all new cars are designed. The less a car crumples, the more energy/force is transferred to you inside, which is not good for you...lol
I'm sure many of you have seen clips of older/larger cars crashing into newer/smaller cars. The survivability is MUCH higher in the newer cars. Engineering ftw.
However, that's not gonna stop me from driving and enjoying my supra.
i crashed at 130+ althought it was not a blunt force hit, i had no injuries. If i had hit a strong stationary object i'm sure i would of died but, i did rear end a car and a center divider. Say what you want i paid my due for that mistake... But yea they are pretty safe but nothing compared to the new cars of today. Althought the new car will "look" more messed up the passengers inside will not feel as much as you will in the supra.
As a comparison
[video=youtube;joMK1WZjP7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g[/video]
Bel Air (60's) vs today's malibu...
Head on 35/40 MPH your going to be HURT!!
As a comparison
[video=youtube;joMK1WZjP7g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g[/video]
Bel Air (60's) vs today's malibu...
Head on 35/40 MPH your going to be HURT!!
That poor Bel Air... I hate seeing things like this, particularly to cars that still look like they're in decent shape. You still won't find me in an Everybrand Boringbox though. For every accident I've had/been involved in, I'd much rather take my chances in something I actually like to drive, rather than let paranoia stuff me into a Hyundai Something-Or-Other...OneJArpus;1786262 said:
te72;1786458 said:
Very true, but safety becomes a huge issue when you have children. I want nothing but the best safety features i can buy for my children. Me on the other hand, i'll take chances because i can take pain. But then again i do not want to leave my kids with out a dad. Your perspective will change eventually with off spring.