Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > General > General Discussion
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-17-2007, 11:45 AM   #16
BMW_7
Econobimmer Racing
 
BMW_7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kiev
Posts: 8,351
Send a message via AIM to BMW_7 Send a message via MSN to BMW_7
^ 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
__________________
Vitaliy

2000 Audi A8 SWB Silver/Black
1992 BMW 525iT/5 White/Blue [MPars, HIDs, cargo net]
1989 525i [scrapped]
1995 BMW 318i DASC [sold]
BMW_7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 11:55 AM   #17
propr'one
op sucks cock
 
propr'one's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: T.
Posts: 17,674
Send a message via MSN to propr'one
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.
__________________
d1s bulb canada[/size]
Hot: 2001 Estoril M Roadster ZCP 19's, ZHP knob, JL 8W3
Hot: 2013 Black Ninja 300 ABS Leo Vince Carbon pipe
Cold: 2002 TiAg M3 6mt ZCP 19's supersports, deoranged, dechromed, led tails, ZHP knob, UUC SS v3, GROM, OEM 18's w310's,
hid headlights hid kit
propr'one is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 01:32 PM   #18
Cameron
save synchros; double dip
 
Cameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brampton
Posts: 57
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!
Cameron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 01:53 PM   #19
dtthiaga
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FromEuroNCAP_1.JPG (51.6 KB, 65 views)
dtthiaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 01:59 PM   #20
dtthiaga
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW_7
^ 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!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FromEuroNCAP_2.JPG (66.9 KB, 67 views)
dtthiaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 02:44 PM   #21
jameswbl
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: TO
Posts: 383
hahaha...i have always hated the new 5 series...one for the team...
jameswbl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 03:17 PM   #22
Cameron
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
Old 08-17-2007, 03:41 PM   #23
Lee
Original BMW Teile
 
Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 196
"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.
Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 04:34 PM   #24
BigD
the misanthropist
 
BigD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: a house
Posts: 6,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
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
BigD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 05:50 PM   #25
Cameron
save synchros; double dip
 
Cameron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brampton
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigD
Or buy one
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.
Cameron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2007, 11:28 PM   #26
BigD
the misanthropist
 
BigD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: a house
Posts: 6,142
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.
BigD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 07:30 AM   #27
dtthiaga
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cameron
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.

Last edited by dtthiaga; 08-18-2007 at 07:33 AM.
dtthiaga is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.