http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293437,00.html

Just saw this when perusing the news...wow. Wasn't the last gen 5-er the BEST in side impact tests? I guess they are blaming the injury on an Armrest...but to be beaten by a Kia...ouch!

It's FOX news... I'm thinknig they are not an authority in this stuff...

It's FOX news... I'm thinknig they are not an authority in this stuff...

That is why I went to the source and watched the vid on the IIHS website...watch the dummy in the BMW and you will see the body jerk pretty hard on impact.

http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx?f=releases/pr081607.flv

And just to piss you off ( which I should not since we both love old Buicks ) All I could think of while watching the video was" : "Imagine if these were PILLERLESS HARD TOPS!!! " Ouch.

What does it matter if it was Fox, CNN, MSN, or Time Magazine...it was a news story about the IIHS testing results.

Leave hardtops out of this....

The Mercedes CL has BETTER side impact ratings than a typical 2dr sedan!

That's because its a Mercedes.

Anyway, the Amanti looks better after the impact.

Yes... Mercedes DOES engineer the $hit out of stuff, if that's what you're trying to say.

BMW is no less expensive or "premium", they also should be held to a higher standard!

Meaning that a Mercedes hardtop will actually be stronger and more resiliant than, say, a Chrysler or Toyota hardtop. After experiencing their convertible offerings, any pillarless hardtop from either would be a death trap.

Well yes. The Sebring and Solara-Camry ragtop have about as much flex as a

gum wrapper over washboard surfaces... while even 1980s Merceded ragtops

are very composed & solid.

And that's my point - its not that pillerless hardtops are unsafe, even for side impact, its just that they're naturally less structurally sound than an identical pillered car and the structural changes necessary to make it as rigid are beyond the financial means of most manufacturers.

Hasn't the Mercedes E-class been acclaimed as the safest car you can buy? I thought that was in fairly recent news anyway. Granted, it isn't a "pillarless hardtop."

Regardless, I haven't watched the video yet, but it really is inexcusable that it did so poorly.

I've seen/read about many accidents other forum members have gotten into in their BMW's. Many of these accidents ended with the car getting totaled in a very bad way. The car looked unidentifiable from the outside and was totally demolished, but the cabin stayed intact and protected the driver. I saw an incident with a car just like mine. It was a 2001 e39 525 I believe. I can't remember how the accident went down, but basically every side of the car was demolished (I believe he took some big hits and the car also rolled). It was an accident you shouldn't see someone walk away from, but miraculously, the driver survived with minor scratches and bruising. He posted pictures of the car, and we were in awe. The car was a crumpled heap of metal, but inside that crumpled heap was a nearly fully intact cabin. It really was amazing and quite the testament to the build of the car. Same goes for the many other accidents I've read about regarding older 3-series and such. This is just disappointing though.

Edit: Here's a similar situation...

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showt...ghlight=totaled

Edited August 16, 200718 yr by Nick

And that's my point - its not that pillerless hardtops are unsafe, even for side impact, its just that they're naturally less structurally sound than an identical pillered car and the structural changes necessary to make it as rigid are beyond the financial means of most manufacturers.

In this case, the test results had nothing to do with structure, but test-specific injury measures. The BMW, Volvo, Cadillac, Acura, and Mercedes all received the same structure ratings (the Kia had the worst). The current 5-series came out in 2004, before the IIHS side test procedures were introduced, so BMW couldn't optimize the airbags in time to do well. It's a shame they didn't do that with the 2008 refresh.

Interestingly, the 3-series sedan got IIHS's highest rating in the same test.

BTW, adding to this hardtop safety debate, it's interesting to note that the convertible 3-series, C70, and G6 (all B-pillar-less) had higher structure ratings than their sedan counterparts in the IIHS side test. Then, of course, they weigh about 500 lbs more...

B-PILLAR TO LONGITUDINAL

CENTERLINE OF DRIVER'S SEAT*

(cm)

BMW 3 series convertible

-16.5 (Good)

BMW 3 series sedan

-10.0 (Acceptable)

Pontiac G6 convertible

-14.5 (Good)

Pontiac G6 sedan

-2.0 (Marginal)

Volvo C70

-14.0 (Good)

Volvo S40

-11.5 (Acceptable)

>>"...its not that pillerless hardtops are unsafe, even for side impact, its just that they're naturally less structurally sound than an identical pillered car and the structural changes necessary to make it as rigid are beyond the financial means of most manufacturers."<<

Horse-puckey. It's far less involved that engineering a convertible, and a great many manufacturers rubber-stamped the R&D bill for that. Engineer the next gen Model X as a hardtop from the beginning, and there's almost no

additional cost (in addition to a pillared model, or retro-fitting a pillared model into a hardtop is another, more costly issue).

Balthazar said it all right there...

Nick: How fast do you think the 530 dude was going? Seriously?

I'm thinking his blowout was at about 90mph and might have

involved a lot of luck. Holy hel he's lucky to be alive!

Oh, and here's a freekin' idea:

Look both ways before crossing a dangerous intersecion.

I always do, weather I'm driving a 2008 Duramax Diesel

powered 3500 or a pillarless hardtop from the 1960s.

Horse-puckey. It's far less involved that engineering a convertible, and a great many manufacturers rubber-stamped the R&D bill for that. Engineer the next gen Model X as a hardtop from the beginning, and there's almost no

additional cost (in addition to a pillared model, or retro-fitting a pillared model into a hardtop is another, more costly issue).

Convertibles command a higher price tag. Can a pillarless hardtop? No. Engineering such a vehicle from the get-go to have something that has a purely cosmetic effect has zero value and is something no manufacturer would do aside from pure fancy, and an innovative imagination is something sorely lacking outside of probably two or three major automakers...one has a hardtop coupe and you're on the site dedicated to the other one.

Look both ways before crossing a dangerous intersecion.

I always do, weather I'm driving a 2008 Duramax Diesel

powered 3500 or a pillarless hardtop from the 1960s.

Specious reasoning. 'Looking' doesn't prevent the other motorist from not looking, nor does merely observing a dangerous situation extricate you from it.

Again, its not as much a structural issue for hardtops as a class as it is a return of investment issue to make X-mobile a structurally-sound hardtop in the first place.

a pillarless hardtop might be able to be designed to be safe, but visual lack of structure is unsettling for many buyers. just like a three season porch suspended by a couple of slender posts.....it might do the job, but it looks suggest its very weak and not able to keep from collapsing.

Convertibles command a higher price tag. Can a pillarless hardtop? No. Engineering such a vehicle from the get-go to have something that has a purely cosmetic effect has zero value and is something no manufacturer would do aside from pure fancy, and an innovative imagination is something sorely lacking outside of probably two or three major automakers...one has a hardtop coupe and you're on the site dedicated to the other one.

Specious reasoning. 'Looking' doesn't prevent the other motorist from not looking, nor does merely observing a dangerous situation extricate you from it.

And it would be cheaper still to engineer a purpose built convertible first, then throw a hard top over it. Rather than engineering a convertible and a pillared coupe separately.

As for the Solara, I believe it is still a chop job. Regular Solaras are sent off to some 3rd party to be converted.