View Single Post
Old 08-17-2007, 03:17 PM   #22
save synchros; double dip
Cameron's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brampton
Posts: 57
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.

Last edited by Cameron; 08-17-2007 at 03:21 PM.
Cameron is offline   Reply With Quote