• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Shocked how unsafe minivans are

I cringed when I looked at that Town and Country photo, the parking break pedal crushed/sliced the left foot. I'm thinking the blood loss from that along might kill you if it takes them more than half an hour to get you out of the car.
 
That small overlap test is fairly new, don't think manufacturers have built cars with it in mind yet. When you think about it the whole weight of the car is being stopped by a small area with an empty space in it(wheel), odds are its not going to do well.
 
The issue here is that I think a lot of minivans have not had thorough redesigns since the implementation of the small overlap test. Cars had similar horrible results (if I remember correctly a bunch of 5 star ones dropped to 2 and 3 stars) and improved with newer ones.

Seems weird that it's news now when the small overlap test debuted in 2012. I guess they just got around to testing them for 2015 model year (their page has the 2014 Kia Sedona listed but it didn't get the small overlap test). The Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all debuted totally new generations in 2010. It seems that Toyota and Honda updated them (or had them designed well enough that they handled the test fine) and Nissan I guess didn't. The Chrysler/Dodge vans are still going from the 2008 generation and an all new one should be out next year so I'm not too shocked at it's poor showing (but at the same time damn it really needs an update).

I'd be curious how the new Kia Sedona does since it's the "newest" design of the bunch.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
The issue here is that I think a lot of minivans have not had thorough redesigns since the implementation of the small overlap test. Cars had similar horrible results (if I remember correctly a bunch of 5 star ones dropped to 2 and 3 stars) and improved with newer ones.

Seems weird that it's news now when the small overlap test debuted in 2012. I guess they just got around to testing them for 2015 model year (their page has the 2014 Kia Sedona listed but it didn't get the small overlap test). The Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all debuted totally new generations in 2010. It seems that Toyota and Honda updated them (or had them designed well enough that they handled the test fine) and Nissan I guess didn't. The Chrysler/Dodge vans are still going from the 2008 generation and an all new one should be out next year so I'm not too shocked at it's poor showing (but at the same time damn it really needs an update).

I'd be curious how the new Kia Sedona does since it's the "newest" design of the bunch.
Click to expand...

What you said it very true.
 
My cousin was killed in a Honda Odyssey when a F150 crossed the median and struck it in a similar fashion. That accident actually claimed 3 lives and badly injured a 4th passenger.

I think the biggest problem with minivans is the lack of structure and frame in the front. By design, they simply have less metal and frame between the driver and the point of impact.

In the case of the accident that claimed my cousin's life, the wreckage looked more like a crushed tin can than a van. It's amazing anyone was able to be pulled from that wreckage alive.
 
Up till the implementation of this small overlap test, Minivans consistently did well in safety tests. I am sure they will ace the current tests when the next generation models debut.
 
A guy I know hit a telephone post offset at 70 mph in a mid 90s windstar 'asleep'
They both came away alive and well actually with only the driver having a broken ankle.
That's pretty safe
 
desy said:
A guy I know hit a telephone post offset at 70 mph in a mid 90s windstar 'asleep'
They both came away alive and well actually with only the driver having a broken ankle.
That's pretty safe
Click to expand...

Therein lays the problem with trying to extract useable data from limited real world events.
 
I was trying to find a picture of it
It looks pretty much exploded,
I used it in another conversation with a guy saying that 'what would you rather be in a accident an old 70's boat with thick bumpers or these new plastic cars' of which I replied 'the new car cause like Joe over here I'd like to walk away with air bags unibody construction and seat belts saving my life'
He said 'no I meant like parking lot fender benders and such' and I said ' I don't care, Insurance will cover that, I want to save my life instead'
 
desy said:
I was trying to find a picture of it

It looks pretty much exploded,

I used it in another conversation with a guy saying that 'what would you rather be in a accident an old 70's boat with thick bumpers or these new plastic cars' of which I replied 'the new car cause like Joe over here I'd like to walk away with air bags unibody construction and seat belts saving my life'

He said 'no I meant like parking lot fender benders and such' and I said ' I don't care, Insurance will cover that, I want to save my life instead'
Click to expand...


Not your pic...but equally convincing...

http://youtu.be/xtxd27jlZ_g
 
i don't understand why people are so shocked at small overlap crash tests. you're concentrating more force on a smaller area - of course cars that aren't designed with this test in mind are going to do horribly (which is basically every car until it gets updated)
 
KentState said:
That's why I would not want to own a classic car. Love the history and looks but they are so unsafe compared to what we have today.
Click to expand...

That's why they're good for tooling around town but I'd never take one on the freeway in modern traffic.
 
shabby said:
That small overlap test is fairly new, don't think manufacturers have built cars with it in mind yet. When you think about it the whole weight of the car is being stopped by a small area with an empty space in it(wheel), odds are its not going to do well.
Click to expand...

Some have. Subaru scores at the top.
 
Its easy to pass a test that you know whats going to happen..
A Truly safe car doesn't need to specialize in a test in order to pass it.


See Subaru, Volvo.. some Nissan's...

Which brings me to another point, the G37/Q50 was one of the first cars tested for this and passed "Acceptable" (LINK) without even being build to pass that specific test, so you know Nissan knows how to do it right but then you look at this minivan test and I just don't understand....

2012 Volvo S60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSYLE55iYj0

early 2013 Model Subaru Legacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gYuxfnwK8Y

Models Build after Aug 2012 have new airbag firmware to deploy in the minor overlap test.

And here is a 2015 Legacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIvlXu4xS8c
 
Last edited:
I believe the Acura TL also did well without it being designed for it. I do appreciate cars/manuf.that aced this without a redesign.
 
PricklyPete said:
Tremendously convincing argument.
Click to expand...

Any less of an overlap and the cars would glance off each other. You'd have to almost intentionally hit dead-on like in the test. The best way to avoid getting injured to begin with is to avoid one big, hard smack. If they did just 5% less offset with one car versus another instead of the immobile wall, you'd see alot of hits glance off.

The way most auto companies are fixing this is with a reinforced bumper. Basically just a thick steel bar in the bumper. I don't see how that suddenly makes the car super safe. The crumple zones are what absorb the energy. They're basically trying their best to single out the crumple zone on one side of the car and exploit it. So the fix is to reinforce the bumper with steel to distribute the force of the impact to both sides of the frame. But then you're back to the front being too stiff in a direct head-on.

Basically just the highway institute trying to justify their existence with ever more difficult tests. What would REALLY be safe is better regulations on bumper height. Since I don't think a hummer hitting a versa is going to be five star no matter how many steel bars they put in the bumper, if it never hits the bumper.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that minivans seem to kill fewer people & get in fewer accidents precisely because of how unsafe they are - people drive them more carefully because they are so tippy.

And vice-versa, the sports cars that all have 5-star safety ratings, are low to the ground & shouldn't flip over easily, etc., are the ones that are always involved in terrible accidents because people drive them way too fast. Re: Paul Walker (RIP).
 
Case in point would be this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjnP9RImeaM

The smart car rates good in the offset test but watch what a camry does to it in the very very last clip. I LOL'D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dHo8blskI8

That video, around 1:45 shows the glancing that I'm talking about. Replace the immobile barrier with a tractor trailer and you get glancing. Make it car vs car and reduce the offset by 5% and it would be a 100% glancing blow. That glanced off at a 30% offset.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top