I love their explanations: speed was too high, test was deceptive, we can't protect legs, cause we'll lower protection for head, we passed the minimum safety requirements. How does it compare to real life? I would like to find a chapter in car user manual called: "Prefered accident conditions", where user will be informed he shouldn't be driving more than 35 mph during an accident, should aim directly at the obstacle, be it a wall, tree or another vehicle. When colliding off-center, you should tuck your legs. You would also be told that injuries sustained are within government specifications. I'd also like to hear their rep telling public how much heavy injuries and deaths are acceptable according to them. Preferably with pie charts. Everything's looks better with pie charts.
"They did extremely well; you would have survived in every one of those vehicles." Key word: _survived._ As if the fact that people who have crashes in these vehicles, and will probably not be able to walk on their own two legs ever again, is not the real issue.
I remember when I was a little kid one of my neighbors had a Neon. Thought it was a cute name, but little did I know that said neighbor was driving a very poor performing car.
I simply find it amazing how all these auto makers where standing on the wrong side of history without even knowing so... adamantly defending their cars and heavily criticizing the Insurance Institute. Nowadays, they use their crash test scores from the IISH to promote and sell their cars... Isn't THAT ironic? LOL
Oh sí! Son pruebas reales. Estoy muy pendiente de los resultados para los autos que me interesan comprar. Pueden ser la diferencia entre la vida y la muerte. Algunos carros dicen ser muy seguros y fracasan en algunas de las pruebas más severas!
@TCL IIHS conducts crash test studies that are more rigorous and strict than the gov't standards. They are a huge part of why car safety has improved immensely over the last 30yrs. They put pressure on the manufacturers to do better. The government's own testing is pretty pathetic.
@@hoofaa17 it is possible in a particularly safe, modern (2018 or newer) car because modern cars are getting better at absorbing the energy, running it through the frame of the car, getting the forces away from the driver and increasing the time it takes to decelerate.
Jaymate nope, it can’t. A relative from Australia crashed at 70 mph, no intrusion into the cabin. He died instantly, no car can protect you from those types of forces from 70 mph to nothing. In the top gear episode on RU-vid they crash a smart car at 70 mph and listen to what they say near the end of the video
if I had to get one of these compact saloons, I'd get the Saturn SL2 just so I could walk away from the crash. Saturn sure knew how to make small cars back in the day.
Although I dont disagree with the findings of these older cars, I think a greater issue today is how cars made today make you feel like your going slower than what you are, have less engagement between the driver and the ground that causes needless speeding and complacency. These tests dont mean much when most of the populace is driving above the speed limit and being careless. Nothing against proper hooning, but here in the states most arent formally taught to drive so accidents are more common. These tests tell a lot about a common crash but we really need to fix our drivers educations infrastructure. These small cars are relatively safe when not going head on with 5000 pound truck or a modern 200hp grocery getter 4 door. I hope the research they find continues to improve safety in cars but I find the market seems to sell cars a bit differently than what is efficient, safe or cost effective for the consumer.
the main problem i see is that most cars today are suv's which are taller & heavier, and they are usually driven by less experienced coordinated people. and the modern cars make you feel slow and are removed from the road. i see everyone driving way faster now. also the distracting screens in cars.
20 mph isn't a fender-bender, and 3800 is pretty reasonable. A broken bone is going to run way more than that. Who cares about such a minor cost when the car is designed to sacrifice itself to protect something that cant be replaced...YOU
Yea, 40 mph is “super fast” even though most people in Florida and in a lot of other states drive 50 mph on a 45. So the institutes test is a lot more logical than the governments test
Yeah, but it has been already outdated back then. It's essentially a VW Golf III from 1991, usually a small 3 door compact car. It passed offset crash tests at 35mph, and other tests against heavier cars of the day with flying colors. This 40mph test was specifically developed to raise the bar and challenge those older designs. Let's put it that way: a Mercedes 190E or BMW 3 series from that era wouldn't perform well either. The first Mercedes 200 C class barely passed.
I had a 2002 neon it was made out of Reynolds Wrap tin foil I shut the door one time with my hand on the door itself and it dented if you hit a bump in the road the doors would shake
I’m scared of my neon now after seeing these videos. My daily is a 1998 dodge neon. It’s been a fantastic little car, but these videos scare the crap out of me. Literally a death trap.
"65,000 years of driving, that's how rare this is." The ignorance and idiocy of George Parker's comment is astounding. Who doesn't drive on a road that's exposed to someone else driving towards you on the other side of the road? We all do, unless you live somewhere where there's nothing but one-way streets. That's the very definition of an offset driving direction, or offset crash. What kind of tomfoolery is this fool up to? All he cares about is big money. Was his second job a politician, because his lies would have surely made him a damn good one.
Just 4 years later, the Elantra would flunk the offset test because of late airbag deployment and high head injury measures, along with movement of the driver seat. The 2004 Elantra improved in the same test because the airbags deployed on time.
However, it did take three tests for that generation Elantra to earn a Good rating in the offset test. The first test resulted in a fuel tank leakage, and the airbag never even deployed during the second test.
Its called aerodynamics. Those cars are nice for nostalgic reasons but simply cant hold a candle to newer cars. Power, performance, interior, unibody, handling, abs, AC, power windows, reliability, and so on. Autos have progressed quite a bit since then. And any car that is extensively restored is expensive but doesn't mean its great.
You'd never catch me driving a deathtrap Neon or Sephia. Both of the legs of the Sephia driver were severely injured at the kneecaps, I cringed as the pulled the dummy from that car. Both cars were redesigned around 2000, and both did only marginally better than their predecessors.
I have a 98 Neon and after she saw this, she wants me to get rid of it which I understand honestly but I do like a little car. It definitely feels unsafe though. It’s a go kart and it feels like it’s made out of a tin can 😂
So fast, so severe? With the current 70 mph speed limits and traffic moving at 50 in a 35 zone, super-speeders, and monster personal use vehicles weighing three tons or more, inexcusably high power (who really needs more than 150 horsepower for daily driving?), 40 mph crash tests may be considered to be too slow. There is a trade-off between crash performance and manufacturing cost, but if one car does well in a particular test, what is the excuse that another doesn't in the same test?
5610winston Honestly, is you crash going 150 mph, you’re probably better of dying quickly. Why would you want to live with half of your face missing and many broken bones?
That AIAM sleezeball needs a reality check. Did anyone else notice that he was shaking his head "no" while he was saying that all of the cars did well?
The results in IIHS and Euroncap are different. For example Civic in euroncap is a crap, Corolla is much better. Kia Rio is getting better and better and in IIHS it is a total crap. Probably there are some differences in these car for different regions?
@@justenzo6342EuroNcap actually pushed the offset frontal test to 40 mph, the American institute started off using a speed of 35. The American side impact tests are better though, with a higher more aggressive barrier, and at 40 rather than 30.
Everyone here is correct. 40 mph is the average speed for a two-lane country, mountain, or forest road. Any collision about that speed is a greater chance for more devastating results in the event of that said collision.
The crash test industry wants to test cars at the same speed; most cars should reach 40mph ... and every car has a different top speed, it wouldn't be fair
The Mirage and Mirage G4? Those are cheap cars, actually when IIHS released the small overlap test, Mitsubishi even scored better than some BMW, Mercedes and other cars, the 2008 Lancer earned acceptable when IIHS rated that test, the others got poor, I remember the C-Class got poor at that time, remember the last generation Lancer was released back in 2008. The new Outlander was also named the safest SUV in the market for the year 2023, fun fact, the Outlander got a good rating in the new updated side impact crash test, Volvo with it's XC60 got an acceptable rating, Cadillac with it's XT6 got a poor rating, not to mention the new Grand Highlander got an acceptable rating on the small overlap crash test.
+BlueNinjakoopa553 Yes. It received a poor rating. A concussion would be likely, as well as a severely broken leg. Depending on the crash, the driver may experience some more severe injuries due to the dummy flying about inside the vehicle during the crash. Instrusion was severe and the steering wheel column was rammed upwards, while the foot well was rammed back. The plastic inside the cabin was cracked when the dummy's head hit the windowsill.
+Josh Mckinnley The car is also relatively light (~2700LBS) compared to every other car. You'd probably die if you hit another car since the other car would most likely be heavier. Two of my friends have this car and I worry about them sometimes.
So, would the results of the SeVille also go towards the DeVille? Because you said in the description that the DeVille was one of them, but I never saw it in the video. Just the SeVille. I just want to know if I'm as safe in my 97 DeVille as I would be with the older SeVille they show.
I agree my mom had this 2002 trailblazer and this guy ran a red light and hit my moms trailblazer head on my mom had a lot of engine damage like it made the belt radiator but all it did was mess up the grill and the front bumper not enough damage for airbags to deploy but still lotta engine damage and if your wonders the guys small car that ran red light only had a scratch even though his front went almost all the way to back seats
