You are here:
Forums
Sedans
Low End Sedans (under $16k)

3820 messages, Last post on Nov 24, 2008 at 9:45 AM
You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
|
Replying to: alpha01 (Dec 21, 2006 2:19 pm) It seems the IIHS disagrees with you (bold added by me): The Institute's side test is especially challenging for small cars because the barrier that strikes the test vehicle represents the front end of a pickup truck or SUV. Side airbags designed for head protection are crucial because the barrier crashes into the side of the car right at the head level of the two dummies that are positioned in the driver seat and in the rear seat behind the driver. "The Versa is bigger than the other cars we tested, so it has size and weight on its side as well as good test results," Lund says. http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr121906.html Maybe I am reading that wrong, but the way I read it, the IIHS is saying that the size/weight of a car does make a difference in side crash protection. I read someplace else recently (can't remember where) that another reason that small/light cars are at a disadvantage in a side crash is that they can be pushed further than a heavier vehicle, and potentially putting the car into another traffic lane or other hazardous position.
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 21, 2006 2:42 pm) The IIHS says that size matters in general, but in the IIHS test results for side impacts, some smaller cars do better than largers cars. And the side impact tests are the only ones that can be compared across vehicle class.
|
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Dec 22, 2006 5:33 am) |
|
|
And that was exactly my point - with respect to side crashes, because scores are comparable across weight classes, it CAN be said that you are better off (which I'll define as lower likelihood of injury/death) in a Yaris (with Side Curtains) or Fit than you are in a Crown Victoria or a Sonata, or Fusion, or Maxima, etc. However, it CANNOT be said that for frontal offset crashes you're better off in the Yaris or Fit (Good ratings) than in a Fusion or Impala (Acceptable.) Again, thanks ~alpha |
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 21, 2006 2:42 pm) That makes sense. But whatever results from that event is secondary or tertiary to the initial impact, which is what these tests consider. ~alpha
|
|
|
Replying to: alpha01 (Dec 22, 2006 8:52 am) |
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Dec 25, 2006 9:10 am) |
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Dec 25, 2006 9:10 am) of course, coming off the gas sucking pt cruiser, anything would be a vast improvement in the mileage department.
|
|
|
Replying to: roxy11 (Dec 25, 2006 3:00 pm) "coming off the gas sucking pt cruiser," This comment, unfortunately, is NOT hyperbole. I got a Caliber, which in stick shift configuration is about 2900 pounds, the most porkulent of the economy cars, but fortunately lighter than the PT and HOPEFULLY gets better gas mileage. We got a stick shift this time. I can't blame the sample PT Cruiser we had for bad mileage nor the reportedly "inefficient" Chrysler automatic, since BOTH of the ones we had with auto got bad gas mileage, yet the same engine and transmission in a Dodge Caravan minivan actually got BETTER gas mileage - on the other hand the EPA ratings in the minivan are better, and the highway rating for the PT is only 26 mpg...the stick shift Caliber, on the other hand,is rated 28/32 - an odd combination since the city rating is higher than I would expect for a car of this weight, yet the spread with highway mileage is less than I would have thought (4 mpg spread vs. the more typical 7 mile per gallon or more spread). I will report more on my impressions in the Caliber forum, but my initial impression is that this is much roomier than a Focus or Cobalt.
|
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Dec 25, 2006 4:11 pm) |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2005 Toyota ECHO
2010 Chevrolet Aveo
2009 Kia Rio
2010 Nissan Sentra
2010 Honda Fit
2010 Hyundai Accent
2010 Toyota Yaris
2009 Kia Spectra
2008 Suzuki Forenza



Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats