PDA

View Full Version : BMW. Poor crash rating?


Phantom
08-16-2007, 11:36 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_bi_ge/crash_tests_sedans

325isRED
08-16-2007, 12:37 PM
I always have doubts on these kinda things, always thinking that their is an bias or "tweaking" of the info...

too much BMW pride i guess....

BMW_7
08-16-2007, 01:00 PM
325isRED, I don't know what your smoking but IIHS would have absolutely no interest in "tewaking info".. That would defeat the whole purpose of test now would it?? Come on..


I was gonna post just that article though.

I love it how the Kia costs half as much and more solidly built! Tells you something about South Korea's cars really.

I wonder what BMW has to say on the subject... This is really unacceptable for a car of this caliber. Does anyone know what the crash test rating of e39s is?

Romaz
08-16-2007, 01:22 PM
yeah I just saw that too. A bunch of BS!

StikiGreenZ
08-16-2007, 01:40 PM
Wow, surprising news. BMW better step it up a notch!

I don't think its BS. Dont hate on the results simply because you're a BMW enthusiast. Unless you work at a crash test center, no one here can really call the results BS.

Bartacus
08-16-2007, 01:45 PM
Don't jump to conclusions guys. This is only one set of tests on one model, the 2008 5 series. Doesn't apply to the entire lineup. I know E46s have excellent crash test ratings. Haven't heard anything about the E92s yet. Volvo is still kicking ass, consistently, year after year. BMW should take notes from those guys.

Bart

kidneykill
08-16-2007, 01:54 PM
This is exactly what happens when dummies drive BMW's!

AceOfSpades
08-16-2007, 02:09 PM
kias are still butt ugly

Prash
08-16-2007, 02:14 PM
E-Class > 5-Series.

StikiGreenZ
08-16-2007, 02:24 PM
This is exactly what happens when dummies drive BMW's!

:huh?:

M3ti Compact
08-16-2007, 03:43 PM
Again another case of media exaggerating facts. The BMW is by no means the worst car there. Visit the IIHS website, you will see the BMW scored GOOD in all other tests, and most importantly, in the head and neck.

BMW_7
08-16-2007, 03:53 PM
Well they said that BMW is the poorest performing among "luxury vehicles".

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/image.ashx?rh=821&id=2

The fact that KIA scored well in everything as well, and it looks like it has bigger airbags than the BMW. Maybe that helped? I don't know. The only drawback of Kia was the structure, which recieved an "M". But this test deals with protecting occupants in a side impact. In the end the Kia does it better than the BMW.


If you read up on BMW's test results, they scored POOR in front torso safety, Acceptable in rear torso safety. While the KIA scored GOOD in both.

Description of BMW Torso test:

Injury measures:

Driver Measures taken from the dummy indicate that rib fractures and/or internal organ injuries would be likely in a crash of this severity. A fracture of the pelvis would also be possible.

Rear passenger Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

BimmerboyPH
08-16-2007, 05:44 PM
Could the car they used for these tests be a pre-production model?

denisemichel
08-17-2007, 10:00 AM
dont beleive in this crap, germans no how to build there shit, kia? common*thmbsdwn*

Cameron
08-17-2007, 11:05 AM
I trust the Euro NCAP ratings far more than the IIHS. According to NCAP, the BMW 5 series did quite well with a 4 star rating for adult and child occupants. That is, I trust the results of their tests, not their hilarious fetishes with "Pedestrian protection" and traction control. Personally, if everyone drove Caterhams and Westfields, I doubt there would be as many collisions. Vehicles with less driver distractions tend to contain less distracted drivers.

Here's the link:

www.euroncap.com

They even have crash videos of all the cars they've crashed. It's quite fun to watch if you're into that sort of thing. If you just want a list of all the results, click on "view all results" on the left side of the page, halfway down. They have slow-motion crash videos of frontal, side and pole impact tests for the current generation 5 series.

BMW_7
08-17-2007, 11:45 AM
^ Thanks for the site... Funny how the E36 had poor crash test rating.. How come in the front offset crash the airbag didn't go off?

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_3_series_1997/15.aspx

propr'one
08-17-2007, 11:55 AM
i rather a car give me the tools to avoid a collision altogether, than be built to handle like a bathtub but be re-enforced enough you wont break a nail if you hit someone.

Cameron
08-17-2007, 01:32 PM
I agree completely propr'one. The funny thing is, now organizations like NCAP want you to be able to hit someone (a pedestrian) and not break THEIR nail!

BMW_7, I would expect that the E36 has a poor crash test rating primarily due to its age. Euro NCAP lists the car as "1997" which is dreadfully misleading. The E36 hit the market in about 1992, so the technology in its safety systems would probably date back to at least 1990. One can't expect a car with a 17 year old safety system design to compete favorably with new cars in respect to crash tests.

Avoiding crashes, on the other hand, would be a completely different ball game!

dtthiaga
08-17-2007, 01:53 PM
I trust the Euro NCAP
www.euroncap.com


Even in the NCAP testing, the 5 Series doesn't do as well as the "Honda Lengend/Acura RL" or the Volvo S80.

So, the IIHS testing is more than valid, and far from BS. Those who thinks so have a bit too much BMW pride.

From the "Trusted" NCAP website.

dtthiaga
08-17-2007, 01:59 PM
^ Thanks for the site... Funny how the E36 had poor crash test rating.. How come in the front offset crash the airbag didn't go off?

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_3_series_1997/15.aspx

Oh boy, I'd much rather be in a Honda Accord than a e36!!!! Look at how the roof folds above the drivers door. That is really bad!!!

I'd much rather be in a older Honda Accord than a e36. The e46 Does really well though!

jameswbl
08-17-2007, 02:44 PM
hahaha...i have always hated the new 5 series...one for the team...

Cameron
08-17-2007, 03:17 PM
Dtthiaga, I'm not a fanboi, and I agree completely that the 5 series doesn't do as well (I also think the 5 series is revoltingly ugly too, but that's a bit OT.) Perhaps I should have expressed my unhappiness with the way the linked article "BMW sedan performs worst in crash test" was written, instead of the IIHS itself. The linked article's headline is somewhat misleading. I took it to mean the 5 series has performed poorly in the IIHS crash test. The linked article doesn't actually state what the 5 series actually scored, only that the Acura, Kia and Volvo scored highest, while the Caddy and Merc scored "second-highest," which I interpret as 4 stars out of the 5 star system.

In the NCAP test, the 5 series scored 4 out of 5 stars, suggesting "second-highest" performance and therefore good performance, not performance warranting a huge 24 font title stating "BMW sedan performs worst in crash test." Worst in comparison to cars that are better than it? By the same logic as the title, the backmarkers at each Formula 1 race are the slowest race cars around.

In regard to the 2000 Accord and the 1997 3 series, I don't think my previous argument had any faults. The 2000 Accord was produced from 1998 to 2002, while the 1997 3 series was produced from 1991 to 1998. The Accord's safety systems were probably engineered 7 years after that of the E36.

It would only make sense for the Accord to be safer, I don't dispute that. I do dispute the validity of stating that the E36 is "really bad!!!" simply because it isn't as safe as a car that was engineered seven years later. "Safe" is a relative term.

Lee
08-17-2007, 03:41 PM
"The tests were designed to show what would happen if a truck or sport utility vehicle hit the side of the sedan at 31 mph, the speed of a serious crash."


The problem is mainly related to SUVs and trucks. Get rid of those dangerous piece of lethal metal with bumpers aiming straight at your head, and all cars suddenly become safe.

BigD
08-17-2007, 04:34 PM
The problem is mainly related to SUVs and trucks. Get rid of those dangerous piece of lethal metal with bumpers aiming straight at your head, and all cars suddenly become safe.

Or buy one :cool:

Cameron
08-17-2007, 05:50 PM
Or buy one :cool:

BigD, IMHO that's the root of the problem. People are saying "Screw the other person! I'm driving Molly to school in a SUV/truck to keep her safe, and if I run into someone because I wasn't paying attention and it kills them solely because I picked this SUV/truck, so be it."

The problem with this rationale is twofold. First, there is the unsymmetrical collison between an SUV and a car. Second, there is the SUV vs. SUV collision, which is inherently worse than a car vs. car collision because of the extra mass involved. Thirdly, where is this thinking going to end? If a person buys a cute-ute for the "extra protection" in an asymmetrical collision (a collision with a car) what in the world is this person going to do when their neighbour shows up with a Ford Explorer? Buy a Hummer H1? An Abrams MBT?

Being an alert, defensive driver will do far more to protect your loved ones than driving a vehicle on the road with a body-style intended for off-road use.

BigD
08-17-2007, 11:28 PM
Dude it's just a joke.

Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your action. Do whatever you want, and accept whatever consequences that follow. I love my 4Runner and I haven't killed anyone yet. The first person to tell me that I should sell it because some dipshit will lose control of his car, smash into me, die and I live, will have their skin removed with pliers and soaked in a tub of salt water.

dtthiaga
08-18-2007, 07:30 AM
In regard to the 2000 Accord and the 1997 3 series, I don't think my previous argument had any faults. The 2000 Accord was produced from 1998 to 2002, while the 1997 3 series was produced from 1991 to 1998.

....I do dispute the validity of stating that the E36 is "really bad!!!" simply because it isn't as safe as a car that was engineered seven years later. "Safe" is a relative term.

You missed the point of the Article. We all agree that Front Collision, most cars do really well, including the new little Civics.

We are focusing on side impact now, because there isn't much metal between you and the colliding car.


The 5 Series, did worse than the following cars:
Good Rating (Volvo S80, Audi A6, Acura RL, Lexus GS, Infinit M35/M45, Kia Amanti ),
Average (Merc E Class, Cadillac DTS, Cadillac STS )
... and then comes the BMW 5 Series at Marginal!

The main point is, the BMW scored worse ( “Marginal”), than the Kia Amanti ( “Good"); so, you don't have to spend larges amounts of money to buy a safe car these days! Safety is not reserved for those who can afford a Volvo S80

As for the e36 3 Series, it's pretty bad. The 94-97 Accord fair about the same as the 1998-2002 Accord.

1994-97 models - Average Rating
1998-2002 models - Average Rating

So, that still puts the similar generation E36 in a pretty bad position. Look at the dummies injury sections. Look at how the roof bends for a "premium German automobile".
I've heard it from many, that they would rather be in a BMW than a POS Honda.

I think I’d rather be in an accord, especially the newer ones. Regardless, drive safe everyone; the best is to avoid and not test the structural engineering behind our cars.