Minivans do poorly in new crash tests

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By DEE-ANN DURBIN

DETROIT (AP) — The Honda Odyssey was the only minivan to earn the highest safety rating in new crash tests by the insurance industry.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said Thursday that the Nissan Quest, Chrysler Town and Country, and Dodge Caravan all garnered the lowest rating on the small overlap front crash test, which replicates what happens when a vehicle's front corner collides with another object at 40 miles per hour.

In each of those cases, the minivans' structure collapsed from the force of the crash. In the Quest, both of the dummy's legs were trapped and the air bag was shoved up into its face, the institute said. In the Town and Country, the dummy's head slid off the air bag and hit the instrument panel.

The Toyota Sienna earned the second highest rating of "acceptable." The institute said its structure was weak but the dummy was protected by its side air bags.

FULL story at link.



This photo provided by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) shows a small overlap frontal crash test of the 2014 Nissan Quest. The IIHS says the Nissan Quest, Chrysler Town and Country and Dodge Caravan all earned the lowest rating on the small overlap front crash test. In each of those tests, the crash caused the minivan{2019}s structure to collapse. (AP Photo/Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141120/us--crash_tests-minivans-63554d31e9.html

[NV Whino]

1. I thought they ran those tests at 35 mph

Not trying to defend poorly built cars, but 5 mph makes a big difference.

[valerief]

2. I don't understand why people drive these short busses when they're the only person in the car. nt

[Adrahil]

3. Well....

We have 2 cars in my family. One is a minivan. Unless we wanna buy another car, either my wife or I is going to be driving the minivan. Understand now?

[Roland99]

5. Well, let's see...

We have 5 in the family and often have friends of the kids with us on outings.

In the meantime, while the kids are in school and I'm at work, all that's left is my wife. I suppose she could ask around the neighborhood if there's anyone else who wants to go to Sam's Club or to the school as she volunteers in the room and is on the PTO.

I also suppose while the kids are in school and I'm at work that my wife shouldn't go visit friends who are off work that day or hang with other stay-at-home moms and take a few hours to go to Disney (15-20min from our home) or anything like that.

She should obviously stay at home like a good stay-at-home mom unless we can fill the van to capacity on every trip!

[valerief]

10. It's a shame your kids can't fit in sedans. nt

[Roland99]

11. Isn't it?

I mean...it's obviously safe to cram 5 kids across the backseat of a Mazda 6. Who needs seatbelts??

[valerief]

13. So you were incorrect when you said there were five in your family. There are

at least six of you.

We have 5 in the family

But if you're proud of your short bus, you shouldn't let my dislike of them bother you. There's room for differences of opinion, aren't there?

[LanternWaste]

20. Yup... even the peevish, uniformed ones.

"There's room for differences of opinion, aren't there?"

Yup... even the peevish, uniformed ones; regardless of one's likes or dislikes.

[Roland99]

22. Let's read the FULL sentence, shall we?

"We have 5 in the family and often have friends of the kids with us on outings."

You must work for Faux News or something.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. You're Going Down A Tenuous Path Valerie

As someone who DOESN'T have a minivan, and never has, i think your posts are pretty insulting.

[Archae]

6. My Dad bought the minivan 2 years before he died.

My Mom still drives it because she's used to it, and knows all the little quirks the minivan has.

She was thinking of this year trading it in on a smaller car, but changed her mind.

My Dad originally bought the minivan because he hauled a lot of stuff around, especially when he and Mom would go to Florida for the winter.

[shanti]

8. everything isn't all as it seems

i have a 4 cyl Caravan, and it's 10 years old. when i bought it, i had a teen son who played basketball. his friends were all over 6 feet tall. i purchased it so i could schlep all these kids around, often every weekend during bb season. also, was doing a lot of remodeling on the house and needed the room to carry things.

now i don't need it, but i'm retired and cannot afford a car payment or a smaller car. so that's why you may see people driving a van alone....

this van was the first "big" vehicle i'd ever owned. if/when my income goes up, i definitely want a small car, and would like a hybrid.

[LanternWaste]

19. I wonder why anyone drives anything with more than one seat...

I wonder why anyone drives anything with more than one seat...

(six of one, half a dozen of the other-- attempt distinction without a difference below)

[GreatGazoo]

4. ..and then they tested this one with a drone strike...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Isis

...The Toyota Isis covers a lot of territory and gets such good mileage it actually winds up selling extra gasoline every day. Has room for up to 7 former Iraqi generals...

[FLPanhandle]

7. They are still far, far safer than the station wagon my parents drove us around in.

All of us unrestrained, no real crumple zones, no airbags, no anti-locking brakes....

The might be lowest ranked in safety rating, but compared to the old days, it's like being the lowest ranked Mensa member.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The station wagons I grew up in during the '60s were made of steel

not fiberglass (plastic) with "crumple zones".

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. Crumple zones are your friend.

Which would you rather throw away: your old car, or your old body?

A 2009 Chevy Malibu Destroys a 1959 Bel Air — Literally

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Those were not station wagons

This was the 1st that we had -



This was the 2nd one we had -



Smaller cars would have to barrel through quite a bit for a head-on. Broadside would be a different matter, as with any car.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. I had a 1967 Country Squire.

Your second Country Squire was a 1968. The dual master cylinder was introduced in the 1967 model year, so I had that. Disc brakes were an option, but my car had drum brakes all around. Shoulder belts were also an option. My car came with lap belts only, but I installed a set of shoulder belts I got at a junkyard. The places to which they were to be mounted were up behind the headliner.

I crossed the country in it twice. It was like a limo.

Country Squires were pretty solid, but what Xithras said is right: let the car take the brunt of the forces, not the occupants.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. We got that because the other one rusted through the floor

We went to many drive-ins in that '68 (we had it for 10 years) with the 2nd row bench folded down, blanket, pillows, food, and 3 sisters rolling around in the back listening to a tinny speaker hung on the window. Times have sure changed (my current car is probably the same size but has 3 rows of seats).

[Xithras]

15. Most modern cars are far safer than those old steel behemouths.

Every test ever done on classic cars vs newer cars has demonstrated that those crumple zones save lives. Heavy steel cars were built with the mindset that heavy steel cars take less damage during accidents. The problem is that physics tells us that all the energy from the crash has to go SOMEWHERE, and in those steel cars it usually went to the occupants. Crumple zones were invented when safety engineers realized that it was more important to sacrifice the car and protect the driver. The CAR absorbs the energy of the impact so the people inside won't have to. Yes, it means that modern cars can get totaled in accidents that cars from the 60's used to be able to drive away from, but it means that YOU are more likely to walk away from accidents that would have killed you in the 60's.

Besides, those old cars aren't nearly as well built as most assume anyway.




In spite of the skepticism and conspiracy theories put out by the classic car community, the IIHS test shown here wasn't doctored or faked in any way. The car had an engine and a solid frame. A quick Google image search will turn up photos of countless hundreds of other old vintage car wrecks that folded up just like this one. New cars ARE safer.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachments/wreck1-png.1833826/

[BumRushDaShow]

17. That is thanks to a lot of features

like airbags (except all those faulty ones out there), stabilization, better tires, of course seat belts, etc.

[shenmue]

23. Ouch