February 8, 200719 yr Author Not any time soon... even if they manage to pull of dealership networks if their cars are that horrible in crahs tests they CAN NOT sell them in the USA. We have the most stringent safety standards in the world. Nissan still made 4-door hardtops in the mid-1980s for sale in Australia & Japan.... not that there's anything wrong with that technically but they did not even make a very ridgid B-post, it was the same unibody tin-can that my Datsun Maxima is based on. Safety considerations are still at or below USA's 1950s levels in many parts of the world, in some ways worse because they think airbags will make up for $h!ty design.
February 9, 200719 yr Funny stuff... http://blog.abovetopsecret.com/wecomeinpea...good_itl_1.html Yeah, but remember GM used to make collapsable junk like that also...as recently as the Astro and Blazer...
February 10, 200719 yr Yeah, but remember GM used to make collapsable junk like that also...as recently as the Astro and Blazer...Whaa- the Astro & Blazer's dashes detached & ripped the front passenger's heads off, yet still passed federal regs and made it to production?? Really?? >>"when the dashboard flies through the interior of the car to the back seat, it does so at face height "<<
February 10, 200719 yr Yeah... ummm... deja-vu man Wook at my wecked Bwazer... or maybe this? These are products GM was selling in... what? 2000? So the Chinese are 7 years behind GM now. The Japanese were a lot further behind than that when they entered the US market... Edited February 10, 200719 yr by the_yellow_dart
February 10, 200719 yr Whaa- the Astro & Blazer's dashes detached & ripped the front passenger's heads off, yet still passed federal regs and made it to production?? Really?? >>"when the dashboard flies through the interior of the car to the back seat, it does so at face height "<< 2005 Chevrolet Astro 2005 Chevrolet Blazer 2005 Chevrolet Venture "Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)." edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack. Edited February 10, 200719 yr by empowah
February 10, 200719 yr Well, that's pretty damned bad. I guess the 'dash rips off and slams into passenger's head' was hyperbole, not fact. Still, I've had more than enough evidence with all sorts of chinese-manufactured goods to vow to never buy anything as complicated as a vehicle, nevermind something with moving parts.
February 11, 200719 yr These are products GM was selling in... what? 2000? So the Chinese are 7 years behind GM now. The Japanese were a lot further behind than that when they entered the US market... The Venture and derivatives were sold from 97 until 2005. So I guess they are 2 years or 10 years behind depending on how you look at it. Honda is now probably one generation ahead of GM.
February 11, 200719 yr 2005 Chevrolet Astro 2005 Chevrolet Blazer 2005 Chevrolet Venture "Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)." edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack. Yes, unsafe at any speed... I'm surprised GM got away with building such subpar junk...I'm surprised Nader didn't jump all over this..
February 12, 200719 yr Author I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone. It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design, I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones. IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys.
February 12, 200719 yr Yes, unsafe at any speed... I'm surprised GM got away with building such subpar junk...I'm surprised Nader didn't jump all over this.. Nader is too busy trying to be someone again.
February 12, 200719 yr I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone. It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design, I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones. IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys. Or they're just absolute junk. Having too much planned crumple zone shouldn't cause those vehicles to turn into vehicular tin cans like that.
February 12, 200719 yr Man, the engine isn't even in the bay anymore...it's in the driver's lap! Not a bad looking SUV per say, but my god I'd never wanna be in any $h!box from China (or the above mentioned GM vehicles) This is what it should look like: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/390986/volvo..._very_safe_car/ Edited February 12, 200719 yr by Dodgefan
February 12, 200719 yr Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up. They are behind because their government crash test program just started. It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built. Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.) In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this. Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car. So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving. Edited February 12, 200719 yr by JT64
February 12, 200719 yr 2005 Chevrolet Astro 2005 Chevrolet Blazer 2005 Chevrolet Venture "Extreme steering wheel movement violently snapped the dummy's head backward (see arrow)." edit: Oops, dart beat me to it... I hate imageshack. Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture! Edited February 12, 200719 yr by prototype66
February 12, 200719 yr Go figure... My dad has a 97 Astro, and my mother-in-law has a 97 Venture. I knew about the Venture and the Blazer. I didn't realize the Astro had the same problem. I'm guessing the S-10 also horribly fails the crash test. Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture!It's a 2005 model and it says Trans Sport on the side?
February 12, 200719 yr Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up. They are behind because their government crash test program just started. It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built. Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.) In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this. Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car. So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving. My car....2000 Not not nearly as bad as any of those vehicles posted.
February 12, 200719 yr Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up. They are behind because their government crash test program just started. It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built. Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.) In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this. Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car. So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving. My car....2000 model year. Not not nearly as bad as any of those vehicles posted. Of course the Charger is much better, but this is at least survivable. Edited February 12, 200719 yr by Dodgefan
February 12, 200719 yr I beleive the proble wiht the above mentioned GMs is the same as many other cars from the era: TOO MUCH crumple zone. It's funny how certain members of this site say 1960s, 1970s and 1980s GM BOF cars are very unsafe because they are SO very rigid and do not compress and crumple in a bad accident, but then again the later BOF stuff that is soft and dumbed down crumples up way too easily, can't have both. Pick one and go with it, if you beleive in something stick to it. Understandably the photos presented show cars (trucks) or sub-par safety design, I'm just saying, perhaps a lot of that had to do with all you unibody loving clowns saying the big BOG stuff was way too rigid and lacked soft crunple zones. IN the end I'll just drive around in my 4-dr hardtop, BOF, air-bag free 1964 Olds and try to not run red lights and merge without looking. Not driving like an @$$hole is still the No. 1 best way to not get killed in a motor vehicle. If you do your best and you're still killed, pehaps it was your time, at least you LIVED, unlike the people who drive Camrys. Astro and Blazer aren't BOF?
February 12, 200719 yr Author Here's waht it comes down to: Every few years, in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and now the 2000s we hear how everything OLD is junk and everything new is PERFECT. it's a consumerist mentality... junk your old crap buy new crap. Ther truth is that vehicles have NOT been getting consistantly and progressively safer & better, if you honestly think a 1970 vega is safer than a 1957 Bel Air in most circumstances than you are just blind, same goes for a lot of other cars, how about a 1960 Ford versus a 1970 Pinto... let's not even GO there, right? If the car indusctry really was revolutionizing & reinventing automotive safety every year and things were getting BETTER consistantly at the rate they claim there would be almost no chance of getting killed in a car slamming inot a brick wall at 90mph if you had your seatbelt on, which we all know is NOT the case. I mean seriously ever heard of the annoalogy of a grain of rice on a checkerboard? it's like that, if you increase something EXPENENTIALLY every few years pretty soon you're looking at some earth-shattering improvement. 90% of this crap in marketing 101 and Federal Regulation B.S. These cars are designed for THIS particular crash test... in the real world I'm sure that there are scenarios where a 1997 Astro will do much better than a 2008 Enclave. It's all about compromise, either you want HARD or SOFT, you can't have both!
February 12, 200719 yr Is there a reason why a two-year old (?) crash test of a Land Wind is still making news? Hasnt' this been posted on a few dozen sites for quite some time now? Yes, the Chinese are a bit behind the Japanese, Koreans, Americans, and Europeans...but they're also moving quicker than any of the aforementioned. I expect the Chinese vehicles to be four- or five-star vehicles in just a few years. And I never expected the Land Wind (nee 1992 Isuzu Rodeo) to make it to the US market anyway.
February 12, 200719 yr Author Astro and Blazer aren't BOF? Of course they are you clown, but they're from an era when the public and some stupid fedeal regualtion comitee decided that SOFT, crumple-prone design (in frame or BODY) will be the solution tom all man's problems. YOU CAN NOT DESIGN A CAR TO BE THE SAFEST IN ALL CATEGORIES OF CRASHES, ALL THE TIME, IN ANY AND EVERY SCENARIO AT ANY AND EVERY SPEED! Obviously these vehicles suck, but to blame BOF for their poor design would be like me saying Unibody suck and using this as evidence: (this generation of '84 Mopar Minivans was not redesigned untill the mid 90s) yes, that's right Bitches... that's a VOLVO! :AH-HA_wink: seems like a pretty realistic translation of an OFFSET car crash in the real world... It's a 2dr Cavalier for those who can not tell. (1995-1999) And if you are going to pick on BOF, as usual FORD is the lowest common denominator: Notice that these modern, super-safe cars (new C-class Benz) have waht are essentially HUGE boxed frames upfront, albeit fused to the rest of the body & structure... much closer to the idea of BOF verssu the traditional unibody box with a few hard-points for suspension etc...
February 12, 200719 yr Yes the Chinese are 7 years behind. But it only takes one generation of redesign to catch up. They are behind because their government crash test program just started. It only takes a few hours to buy a 5-star car, tear it down, and look at how it's built. Then, copy the structure (since there are no enforceable copyright laws in China, it's even easier to do.) In the USA, many cars on the market tested by the NHTSA in the year 2000 crashed like this. Most used cars on dealers' lots will crash just like this Chinese car. So think about how safe your pre-2002 car is that you're driving. You mean the IIHS. The goverment test NHTSA isn't nearly as strict and most cars come away with 4 or 5 star ratings anyways. Those pics posted of those GM vehicles were from the IIHS. They don't look nearly as bad in the NHTSA's tests. My 1995 Millenia for the same test:
February 12, 200719 yr Why do I have the urge to take all these pictures and videos of all these crash tests, and mash them together along with the song 'Yakkety Sax' ?
February 12, 200719 yr Here's waht it comes down to: Every few years, in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and now the 2000s we hear how everything OLD is junk and everything new is PERFECT. it's a consumerist mentality... junk your old crap buy new crap. Ther truth is that vehicles have NOT been getting consistantly and progressively safer & better, if you honestly think a 1970 vega is safer than a 1957 Bel Air in most circumstances than you are just blind, same goes for a lot of other cars, how about a 1960 Ford versus a 1970 Pinto... let's not even GO there, right? If the car indusctry really was revolutionizing & reinventing automotive safety every year and things were getting BETTER consistantly at the rate they claim there would be almost no chance of getting killed in a car slamming inot a brick wall at 90mph if you had your seatbelt on, which we all know is NOT the case. I mean seriously ever heard of the annoalogy of a grain of rice on a checkerboard? it's like that, if you increase something EXPENENTIALLY every few years pretty soon you're looking at some earth-shattering improvement. 90% of this crap in marketing 101 and Federal Regulation B.S. These cars are designed for THIS particular crash test... in the real world I'm sure that there are scenarios where a 1997 Astro will do much better than a 2008 Enclave. It's all about compromise, either you want HARD or SOFT, you can't have both! Mieage totals are up and death rate (deaths/mi.) is down.The advancements in safety tech (airbags, ABS, ESP et al) are some of the MOST successful uses of tech in a modern auto (see BMW's i-drive as a prime example of how not to use tech.) I couldn't agree more that safety systems are no substitute for commmon sense at the wheel, but your premise is just wrong. I'd rather have an accident in a New Kia than a older vehicle. You're certainly free to choose the latter...
February 12, 200719 yr I'd rather have an accident in a New Kia than a older vehicle. You're certainly free to choose the latter... Me, too. There'd be one less Kia on the road. ... ba-dum-cha!
February 12, 200719 yr Please tell me that is high speed testing not low speed. I own the 05 Venture and I love my wifes face the way it is ! I may be in the market for a new people mover. I realise it says Transsport on the side but its the same damn thing as a venture! The Venture's replacement, the Uplander, is quite a bit studier... ... although its side protection could still be better.
February 12, 200719 yr Everything in china sucks! So much crap is made from china already. Everything I've had that has said, "Made in China" has fallen apart very quickly. From that alone I wouldn't trust their cars even if they did copy other countries.
February 13, 200719 yr Author Let's not forget to bash Italian Cars in this thread. Edited February 13, 200719 yr by Sixty8panther
February 13, 200719 yr Someone post pictures of the 2001 Cavalier crash tests so I can use it to convince my wife to let me buy a new car.
February 13, 200719 yr Let's not forget to bash Italian Cars in this thread. Forget the Chinese cars. That's the worst crash test I've ever seen.
February 13, 200719 yr Someone post pictures of the 2001 Cavalier crash tests so I can use it to convince my wife to let me buy a new car. Safety on the 2001s was unchanged since 1995, so here are some '95 pics. tests
February 13, 200719 yr Author Last but not least.... here's a few French cars. French cars are a joke in and of themselves but here's some pics. just for $hits & giggles!
February 14, 200719 yr More recent Frenchie cars are rather safe. Wasn't the Renault Espace the first car tested to get a 5-star E-NCAP rating?
February 15, 200719 yr Author LOL that's a funny one... forgot about that. I like French Bread, it's good stuff. Renault, not so much.
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.