MK3 Crash Safety?
- Thread starter chris89
- Start date
Ever seen Deathproof? Thats what u gotta do.:aigo: No for real they are ok but not the best. 90+ I say are the safe ones as they have airbags.
This model Supra was designed long before things like lower impact resistance regulations to increase fuel economy.
In short, it's *really* tough. Run it into anything modern, and you'll come out the winner. Well, staying away from commercial trucks, buses, and the like, anyway.
In short, it's *really* tough. Run it into anything modern, and you'll come out the winner. Well, staying away from commercial trucks, buses, and the like, anyway.
chris89;1136970 said:
Long, long time ago (maybe 1991-1992)...my roommate was t-boned in the driver's door of his 1990 7MGTE by a 1980's suburban that ran a red light.
He walked away with minor scratches and a couple bruises. I'm pretty sure both vehicles were totaled. I know his Supra was.
Pretty safe cars primarily due to their weight.
Best,
Brad
Well I can tell you that A mini-van backed into me one day, the minivan had no bumper so the strange metal frame hit me exactly where a license plate would go in the front, She "Did not see me” and was backing up quite fast. She hit me hard enough to give me some pain for a few days; However the MK3 took it like a TANK! Not a single thing wrong with it, I even had it checked by a mechanic friend I trust and he found nothing except for the paint has a nice "spider web" looking design from where it decided to crack under pressure. It was not a MAJOR hit but I was amazed how it even felt like the supra pushed back as to say "F**K YOU MINI VAN"
So I think they are safe.
So I think they are safe.
CTsupra
Supramania Contributor
I believe what little crash test data for the mkiii supra out there goes something like this: Most likely to cause damage to other vehicles
All the pictures i have seen of crashed MKIII's, it seems like the interior area is relatively untouched so i feel pretty safe when driving it.
CTsupra;1137093 said:I believe what little crash test data for the mkiii supra out there goes something like this: Most likely to cause damage to other vehicles
just because the supra has mass and doesnt get damaged easily doesnt mean its safe, its almost to the contrary. Newer cars have specially designed crumple zones in order to destroy the car, not the driver. THink about it, a car that hits a wall at 30 miles an hour, the one that crushes more used a lot of that energy in crushing the car, and the one that didnt smash up as much transmitted that much more force into the passenger
CyFi6;1137099 said:
Yes.. This is quite true. As I said in my story, My Supra did not give when backed into so I did hurt for a few days, A new car would have "crumpled" so not to transfer the force to my body. I would not have been hurt at all in a new car. So CyFi6 makes a good point. We have old heavy cars that may do well in a crash, however the driver and/or passenger may not do as well as the car.
It’s the risk we take for having this "love" of an older car. Just be careful, try not to race every idiot out there, and don’t speed for the hell of it.
CTsupra;1137093 said:I believe what little crash test data for the mkiii supra out there goes something like this: Most likely to cause damage to other vehicles
And to injure pedestrians
(seriously)
i recently crashed my 1986 MA70 supra at about 100 km/h considering what happened (slide off the road, got air born, jumped the road, landed on the other side, tire blew out and went backwards into a fence) it took it like a tank, all damage was repairable only 3 dints in the car and a new bumper needed to fix my baby. if it wasn't for its weight and low-ness i would have rolled easily.
That being said i do have a cut on my neck from the seat belt and a 6cm gash on my head too
That being said i do have a cut on my neck from the seat belt and a 6cm gash on my head too
It takes more force to increase the momentum of a 2500lb vs. a 3500lb object at rest or rest mass. As that force increases (momentum, velocity) its energy also increases and its relativistic mass increases vs its rest mass. The only difference between relativistic mass and rest mass is its energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. So the energy must be transferred or changed. I think the newer cars are designed to absorb energy in the crumple zones while still maintaining the integrity of the occupant area. In other words the energy transferred to the occupants is lessened. The older cars (Supra) were designed mainly to maintain the integrity in the occupant area but had less or no regard for absorbing, transferring or changing any energy around the occupant area. So it becomes a mater of rolling the dice. How or where the energy gets transferred or changed determines the outcome. Long story short. Wear your seat belt.
Commence the flaming at will
Commence the flaming at will
I hit a large deer going 55 in my old 89 and the car didn't shudder. You couldnt even see damage from the inside. Took about 800 bucks to fix (including paint).
Like everyone is saying, they don't have the crumple zone stuff, but In all honesty, I feel safer in my supra than in a new plastic car.
I was sitting at a red light, and was rear ended at 60mph by a jetta, supra was pushed about 6 feet into traffic, it had a scar around 2 cm deep in the bumper and about 5 inches long, jetta had the whole driver side finder crushed in, the hood was completely fked, the whole wheel was basically at a 45 degree angle, also i had 2 friends in the car with me, one in the back 1 up front. None of us where hurt or felt any pain, all wearing seat belts. So yea... i would say the supra is pretty damn sturdy. BTW this was an early 90s jetta.
I was sitting at a red light, and was rear ended at 60mph by a jetta, supra was pushed about 6 feet into traffic, it had a scar around 2 cm deep in the bumper and about 5 inches long, jetta had the whole driver side finder crushed in, the hood was completely fked, the whole wheel was basically at a 45 degree angle, also i had 2 friends in the car with me, one in the back 1 up front. None of us where hurt or felt any pain, all wearing seat belts. So yea... i would say the supra is pretty damn sturdy. BTW this was an early 90s jetta.
Davismj711
PA Mountain Supra
Although every crash is different, hearing the tales of survivability certainly makes me feel safer in my Supra.
not what this is about but my uncle died in a mk2 back in I think 83. mk3's are better than the older models at least.
ive been in a couple of accidents with my first supra (the 86.5 i had) i was rear ended on the highway and he hit me so hard when i was at a dead stop it was like an accordion but i was fine.. the car wasn't though surprised i walked away honestly
surprised i walked away honestly
I tested the air bag in my 90, and walked away with my pride shattered. I had some bruising from the airbag, but was otherwise OK. The car........not so good.
D34DC311;1137262 said:
I got rear ended by an early 90s Honda Civic coupe and it destroyed my poor ol Supra. I imagined her to be going 40-50mph.. She hit me, I slid up ten feet and hit the guy in front of me (brakes on btw), and my poor supra warped like a tin can a little..
/
l
Kinda lookin... Anyway, my spare tire absorbed some of the pressure, I'm suprised it didn't blow. It had two sharpish looking metal protrusions going into it and was deformed from all the weight resting on it still.
I dunno, they're safe, but I got rear ended by a damn civic and got hella fucked up. My CD player brackets even broke. Maybe she hit me faster, I dunno, was on the interstate.