5 Star crash test car w/no airbags?

[fleabag]

http://www.safercar.gov/portal...d17898RCRD&model=240SX

I couldn't believe this but apparently the 240SX of 1991 has a 5 star crash test rating for the driver and 4 star for the passenger. It has no airbags and whats more is that the 240SX of 1995 actually gets a WORSE rating, which does have airbags.

I feel like I'm missing something here.. Also the S14 (1995-1998) according to wikipedia is basically the same thing aside from the airbags, no popup lights and other cosmetic things.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Bear in mind that "star" ratings are for comparative purposes only and are only valid within a vehicle's class. A sub-compact with a 5-star rating is still less safe in an accident than a full-size car with a 3-star rating. If all other cars in the class got better, then it's possible for a car to lose ground in those ratings without actually being "worse".

ZV

 

[Billb2]

The rating system changes to reflect newer technology.
Retest a 1991 240SX with today's rating system, /FAIL.

If a 1991 Nissan had a 5 star rating with today's testing methods, Volvo would go belly up!

 

[996GT2]

Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

You better believe that it's mandatory! There are federal minimums that all cars used on public roads must meet. The only exceptions are "kit" cars. Companies must submit their cars to US government-approved crash testing and meet the minimum criteria before they can legally sell that model in this country.

ZV

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

Tests and standards change yearly. Every 17 year old car would rate as 'pathetic' compared to a 4-star car today, let alone a 5-star car.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

Imaginary? The government actually runs tests on the car to get those fuel economy figures, and then they scale them down to compensate for all the lead-foot drivers. Any car in good tune ought to be able to match or beat the EPA's economy figures, unless the driver has no clue how to drive conservatively.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Yeah, like others have said, crash testing methods have changed over the years, just like the EPA's methods for measuring fuel economy.

crash testing isn't imaginary, like fuel enonomy figures

D'oh! Thin line between Friday night and Saturday morning. Sorry.

ZV

 

[Shawn]

Damn, only goes back to 1990. Anyone know what rating my sister's 1989 Accord LXi Sedan would get. It doesn't have airbags.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Bear in mind that "star" ratings are for comparative purposes only and are only valid within a vehicle's class. A sub-compact with a 5-star rating is still less safe in an accident than a full-size car with a 3-star rating. If all other cars in the class got better, then it's possible for a car to lose ground in those ratings without actually being "worse".

ZV

Really? Wow. The Euro Ncap star rating is comparable across segments so you can really see what is safer, regardless of size.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Bear in mind that "star" ratings are for comparative purposes only and are only valid within a vehicle's class. A sub-compact with a 5-star rating is still less safe in an accident than a full-size car with a 3-star rating. If all other cars in the class got better, then it's possible for a car to lose ground in those ratings without actually being "worse".

ZV

Really? Wow. The Euro Ncap star rating is comparable across segments so you can really see what is safer, regardless of size.

Yup, straight from the NHTSA:

Can I compare vehicles from different classes?

Side crash rating results can be compared across all classes because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving barrier.

Rollover ratings can also be compared across all classes.

Frontal crash rating results can only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and whose weight is plus or minus 250 lbs of the vehicle being rated. This is so because a frontal crash rating into a fixed barrier represents a crash between two vehicles of the same weight. Examples:

* It would not be permissible to compare the frontal crash results of a 4,500 lb SUV with those of a 3,000 sedan (different classes and exceeds the weight requirement).
* It would not be permissible to compare the frontal crash results of a 3,600 lb pickup with those of a 3,400 lb van (meets the weight requirement, but different classes).
* It would be correct to compare the frontal crash results of a 3,400 lb passenger car with a 3650 lb passenger car (same class and meets the weight requirement).

 

[natto fire]

So the obvious answer is: "Live a little, pussies!"

 

[fleabag]

Originally posted by: Shawn
Damn, only goes back to 1990. Anyone know what rating my sister's 1989 Accord LXi Sedan would get. It doesn't have airbags.

If that accord model series was made through to the point where they DO have crash test ratings, then you could get an idea of its safety.

An example would be they make a car from 1989-1993, the institute crash test ratings in 1991, and the car first tested is similar to the one in '89 because neither have airbags then you would have an idea of what the ratings would be for the slightly older car that was made before the ratings.

get it?

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: jagec
Imaginary? The government actually runs tests on the car to get those fuel economy figures, and then they scale them down to compensate for all the lead-foot drivers. Any car in good tune ought to be able to match or beat the EPA's economy figures, unless the driver has no clue how to drive conservatively.

I've seen some cars get better and I've seen cars not even touch teh standards. Mainly trucks saying they are suppose to get 23mpg and some get 16mpg straight form teh factory.

Is there soemwhere that actually says how the test is performed, ie enviro, speed, that type of stuff?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Bear in mind that "star" ratings are for comparative purposes only and are only valid within a vehicle's class. A sub-compact with a 5-star rating is still less safe in an accident than a full-size car with a 3-star rating. If all other cars in the class got better, then it's possible for a car to lose ground in those ratings without actually being "worse".

ZV

Really? Wow. The Euro Ncap star rating is comparable across segments so you can really see what is safer, regardless of size.

according to the 5th gear crash test of an old volvo vs. a new renault supermini, ncap ratings are really only comparable between cars of similar size, so it's not different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: fleabag

Originally posted by: Shawn
Damn, only goes back to 1990. Anyone know what rating my sister's 1989 Accord LXi Sedan would get. It doesn't have airbags.

If that accord model series was made through to the point where they DO have crash test ratings, then you could get an idea of its safety.

An example would be they make a car from 1989-1993, the institute crash test ratings in 1991, and the car first tested is similar to the one in '89 because neither have airbags then you would have an idea of what the ratings would be for the slightly older car that was made before the ratings.

get it?

89 was the last year of that body style. I think they added airbags in 1990.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Bear in mind that "star" ratings are for comparative purposes only and are only valid within a vehicle's class. A sub-compact with a 5-star rating is still less safe in an accident than a full-size car with a 3-star rating. If all other cars in the class got better, then it's possible for a car to lose ground in those ratings without actually being "worse".

ZV

Really? Wow. The Euro Ncap star rating is comparable across segments so you can really see what is safer, regardless of size.

according to the 5th gear crash test of an old volvo vs. a new renault supermini, ncap ratings are really only comparable between cars of similar size, so it's not different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense

The smaller car was BETTER OFF than the bigger car in that instance.

All you can really conclude from that is that new safety tech>old safety tech

 

[alkemyst]

in reality airbags have not contributed significantly to saving lives.