Side impact: 3 stars with high risk of pelvic injury = doom [Archive] - bimmerfest

·clyde·

07-17-2003, 05:15 AM

Do you have a link for this . . . I heard something on the radio how the 325 wasn't a safe car but I didn't hear the details.

Soine the 325 is the same as the 330, I am concerned . . .
Just for you, Alan :AF330i:

NHSTA report (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2003&filename=pr31-03.html)

And you can read the other thread (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35033) on the 3 series board. :rolleyes: :p

07-17-2003, 05:26 AM

Just for you, Alan :AF330i:

NHSTA report (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2003&filename=pr31-03.html)

And you can read the other thread (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35033) on the 3 series board. :rolleyes: :p

thanks for the links :thumbup:

SupraRZ

07-20-2003, 03:51 PM

thanks for the links :thumbup:

Which means, E46 drivers should not be drifting into poles :)

07-20-2003, 07:59 PM

Which means, E46 drivers should not be drifting into poles :)

:rofl:Yeah poles and E46's definitely don't mix . . . come to think of it . . . poles and cars don't mix . . .

Nick325xiT 5spd

07-20-2003, 08:04 PM

Geeze, my old E36 was once recalled so they could bolt down the steering column... Apparently it had a tendency to impale the driver.

You're worried about one potential facet of a crash test?

SupraRZ

07-20-2003, 11:23 PM

:rofl:Yeah poles and E46's definitely don't mix . . . come to think of it . . . poles and cars don't mix . . .

There was a link to a european crash test agency... had two tests... a 'slide-into-pole-test' and the regular side impact test. It also had details to which part of the body gets hurt in what car, etc.. i found it far more informative than the primitive american NTHSA site.

Desertnate

07-21-2003, 01:26 AM

There was a link to a european crash test agency... had two tests... a 'slide-into-pole-test' and the regular side impact test. It also had details to which part of the body gets hurt in what car, etc.. i found it far more informative than the primitive american NTHSA site.

The tets are the Euro-NCAP. The link is here.

BTW the 3er is considered a large family sedan :dunno:

Euro NCAP (http://www.euroncap.com/index.htm)

Phil F

07-24-2003, 08:23 AM

Geeze, my old E36 was once recalled so they could bolt down the steering column... Apparently it had a tendency to impale the driver.

You're worried about one potential facet of a crash test?

Yeah, and so am I. I read a statistic last night. 57% of all traffic fatalities in North America involve large trucks or SUVs plowing into smaller cars (like the 3 series). Getting t-boned by one of those things could be serious. And I for one can't buy into the macho attitude that says: "Hey, we 3 series drivers are concerned about performance [yeah, right]--and so what if the car's not very safe?"

I also have to haul my wife and kids around in this thing (at least part of the time.) And when a crash test says "high likelihood of pelvic injury" (an earlier release said "serious pelvic injury"), I get concerned.

The choice between the 325xi and an Audi A4 3.0 was a close one for me. Had I been aware of these test results, I would have certainly gone with the Audi.

·clyde·

07-24-2003, 08:31 AM

Yeah, and so am I. I read a statistic last night. 57% of all traffic fatalities in North America involve large trucks or SUVs plowing into smaller cars (like the 3 series).

You need to keep context in mind when looking at statistics like that. If there only large trucks and SUVs on the road, all traffic fatalities would involve large trucks and SUVs hitting things. There is no getting around the fact that if there are any traffic fatalities they will be the result of one thing or another. We need full, meaningful context such as X number of traffic fatalities result from scenario Y per Z miles driven to draw any reasonable conclusions.

Mr. E

07-24-2003, 11:28 AM

Looks like they only tested the sedan, not the coupe. :dunno:

Strange that side rear passenger was rated 5, but side driver was 3 with high risk of pelvic injury. :confused:

SupraRZ

07-24-2003, 12:43 PM

Yeah, and so am I. I read a statistic last night. 57% of all traffic fatalities in North America involve large trucks or SUVs plowing into smaller cars (like the 3 series). Getting t-boned by one of those things could be serious. And I for one can't buy into the macho attitude that says: "Hey, we 3 series drivers are concerned about performance [yeah, right]--and so what if the car's not very safe?"

I also have to haul my wife and kids around in this thing (at least part of the time.) And when a crash test says "high likelihood of pelvic injury" (an earlier release said "serious pelvic injury"), I get concerned.

The choice between the 325xi and an Audi A4 3.0 was a close one for me. Had I been aware of these test results, I would have certainly gone with the Audi.

... further compounded by the fact that most of these SUV's are driven by soccer moms distracted by their children... I don't really like SUV's in general, but the fact that Darwinism comes into play here makes me think otherwise :(

Phil F

10-28-2003, 06:03 PM

Some one please tell me the NHTSA team failed their drug test. If not, what does BMW plan to do about this?

BMW plans on ignoring this test, that's what! After these tests were released I had a long phone conversation with a fellow named "Nate" at NHTSA. I asked if BMW had requested a retest or if they in any way disagreed with the numbers. Nate said (I'm paraphrasing) 'BMW accepted the results and acknowledged that they were the result of an old design that would be corrected with the release of the E90.'

I called BMWNA for comment and I was given the serious 'run around'. Finally (this took several days) I was turned over to a fellow (I don't have his name in front of me now) who said 'You can't rely on these NHTSA tests, you know' (again, a paraphrase). He told me that he would get BMWs "internal test results" and pass them on to me. After weeks of calling back I finally gave up. No test results were ever forthcoming.

Nick325xiT 5spd

10-28-2003, 06:08 PM

OK, seriously... WHAT THE :nono::nono::nono::nono: DO YOU EXPECT?!?!?!

·clyde·

10-28-2003, 06:23 PM

BMW plans on ignoring this test, that's what! After these tests were released I had a long phone conversation with a fellow named "Nate" at NHTSA. I asked if BMW had requested a retest or if they in any way disagreed with the numbers. Nate said (I'm paraphrasing) 'BMW accepted the results and acknowledged that they were the result of an old design that would be corrected with the release of the E90.'

I called BMWNA for comment and I was given the serious 'run around'. Finally (this took several days) I was turned over to a fellow (I don't have his name in front of me now) who said 'You can't rely on these NHTSA tests, you know' (again, a paraphrase). He told me that he would get BMWs "internal test results" and pass them on to me. After weeks of calling back I finally gave up. No test results were ever forthcoming.
At this point in time, the NHTSA results really are meaningless. The Euro tests don't really mean squat any more either. The E46 has been around long enough for the insurance industry to have built up a pretty decent claims history. That history is a much better indicator of real world crash worthiness (read: occupant protection) than any set of arbitrary crash test results.

bmw325

10-28-2003, 07:29 PM

Do the standards on these tests get more stringent every year? I think they may. What this means is that if a car is tested close to its introduction date (i.e. its a new car), it will probably do well in the test-- if its tested a few years into its lifecycle, it won't do as well as newer competitors. Basically, the rule of thumb now is that if you want the safest car on the road, you should probably buy one of the newest models. If they test the super-safe e90 in 2010, I wouldn't be surprised to see it only 3 stars in some of the tests-- if they tets it in 2007 or 2008, it will probably get al 5s.

Jetfire

10-28-2003, 07:32 PM

Can't speak for the E46, but a good friend of mine was T-boned Tuesday night in his '95 M3. He was making his way through an intersection when a full-size Chevy pickup ran a stop sign and introduced himself to my friend's driver-side door. Broken pelvis, cracked ribs, collapsed lung. He's young and stubborn, so he got home from the hospital today and will make a full recovery. But the car is gone and had the truck hit anywhere but "perfectly" centered between the A- and B-pillars, he would probably either be dead or still in the hospital.

So....three stars is not insignificant. It wouldn't have stopped me, but it might stop plenty of others.

EdCT

10-28-2003, 07:32 PM

At this point in time, the NHTSA results really are meaningless. The Euro tests don't really mean squat any more either. The E46 has been around long enough for the insurance industry to have built up a pretty decent claims history. That history is a much better indicator of real world crash worthiness (read: occupant protection) than any set of arbitrary crash test results.

Although i agree with you, if the best the government can do is take a bunch of different vehicles and slam them into something under identical conditions, it is interesting (and I think, relevant) to see how each vehicle fares (this also satisfies a need for the adult male version of blowing up your model cars and smashing your matchbox miniatures with rocks).

Of course, on slow news days, stories like this get blown out of proportion in the media's relentless drive to scare people into a weeny, ultra-safe life of over-the-top pharmaceuticals and no-risk "actively" driven cars of the future.

To be fun, some things in life take a bit of "risk".

Ed

Plaz

10-28-2003, 07:40 PM

:rofl:Yeah poles and E46's definitely don't mix . . . come to think of it . . . poles and cars don't mix . . .

Well, there's no need to get racist about it! :p :rofl:

bmw325

10-28-2003, 07:45 PM

Although i agree with you, if the best the government can do is take a bunch of different vehicles and slam them into something under identical conditions, it is interesting (and I think, relevant) to see how each vehicle fares (this also satisfies a need for the adult male version of blowing up your model cars and smashing your matchbox miniatures with rocks).

Of course, on slow news days, stories like this get blown out of proportion in the media's relentless drive to scare people into a weeny, ultra-safe life of over-the-top pharmaceuticals and no-risk "actively" driven cars of the future.

To be fun, some things in life take a bit of "risk".

Ed

And, there's always the argument that a BMW's better "active safety" due to its handling/braking can help you avoid many accidents in the first place. Still, I don't think there's any getting around the fact that if do get into an accident in an e46 you won't do as well as if you were in a newer car. Atleast passengers (both front and rear) fare much better- so we don't have to feel bad about taking family members for rides in our e46s.

·clyde·

10-28-2003, 07:48 PM

Although i agree with you, if the best the government can do is take a bunch of different vehicles and slam them into something under identical conditions, it is interesting (and I think, relevant) to see how each vehicle fares (this also satisfies a need for the adult male version of blowing up your model cars and smashing your matchbox miniatures with rocks).

Of course, on slow news days, stories like this get blown out of proportion in the media's relentless drive to scare people into a weeny, ultra-safe life of over-the-top pharmaceuticals and no-risk "actively" driven cars of the future.

To be fun, some things in life take a bit of "risk".

Ed
The problem is that it's all too easy to design a vehicle to perform well in a specific scenario (NHTSA, IIHS, Euro, etc) but will fail miserably in just about every other possible situation. The results may be interesting, but the value is dubious. Even if there was a way to accurately gauge the "safety" of vehicles, isn't there a point where a vehicle is safe enough (short of being able to prevent all injuries)?

·clyde·

10-28-2003, 07:49 PM

Atleast passengers (both front and rear) fare much better- so we don't have to feel bad about taking family members for rides in our e46s.

More reason to not let them drive, huh? :D

bmw325

10-28-2003, 08:25 PM

The problem is that it's all too easy to design a vehicle to perform well in a specific scenario (NHTSA, IIHS, Euro, etc) but will fail miserably in just about every other possible situation. The results may be interesting, but the value is dubious. Even if there was a way to accurately gauge the "safety" of vehicles, isn't there a point where a vehicle is safe enough (short of being able to prevent all injuries)?

And it is true that carmakers increasingly design specifically for these tests-- althugh I've got to think that its better than nothing-- a lot of carmakers who weren't that concerned w/ safety prior to the introduction of the tests have gotten much better (particularly the Japanese makes). I wonder if your theory is correct --- that designing for the test does create an overall less safe car. That was Saab's contention a few years back when their 9-3 or 900 did poorly-- they said that the way the desinged it was better for "real world" scenarios-- but didn't test well.

·clyde·

10-28-2003, 08:55 PM

I'm not saying that designing for the tests actually makes them less safe (although I do believe that it may be a possibility). I'm only saying that how a car does in a test doesn't mean much once you deviate from the test scenario (read: go out in the real world with it).

andy_thomas

10-30-2003, 09:53 AM

bmw325

10-30-2003, 06:37 PM

...all of which kind of begs the question why BMW is selling such a small car in the USA. 3ers are designed for a world market; that Chevy pick-up certainly isn't. Perhaps the two shouldn't mix...

It is amazing (but true) that the e46 is a small car in the US. When I'm in Europe, the e46 looks pretty big to me. Anyway, you do have a good point-- although I think I'd seriously have to move out of this country if all I could buy were large trucks or cars. And, I do think Americans are warming up more and more to the idea of smaller cars. The Mini, for example, is very popular (Atleast on the coasts).

drmwvr

10-31-2003, 07:33 AM

...all of which kind of begs the question why BMW is selling such a small car in the USA. 3ers are designed for a world market; that Chevy pick-up certainly isn't. Perhaps the two shouldn't mix...

I have to disagree. Even here in the land of huge vehicles (Texas), there are always bigger vehicles that the one you are driving. For example, should Ford, Chevy etc. stop selling trucks and SUVs becuse there are semis, dump trucks and concrete trucks on the road? I don't think so. No matter what you drive, you take the risk of being hit by a larger vehicle (with a few exceptions I am sure). I believe that driver education is a more important issue here in the states and needs to be addressed instead of focusing on what size cars are sold. For the record, even though I like my small car, I feel like everyone should have the right to drive whatever vehicle they want regardless of size.

:)

andy_thomas

10-31-2003, 03:33 PM

I have to disagree. Even here in the land of huge vehicles (Texas), there are always bigger vehicles that the one you are driving. For example, should Ford, Chevy etc. stop selling trucks and SUVs becuse there are semis, dump trucks and concrete trucks on the road? I don't think so. No matter what you drive, you take the risk of being hit by a larger vehicle (with a few exceptions I am sure). I believe that driver education is a more important issue here in the states and needs to be addressed instead of focusing on what size cars are sold. For the record, even though I like my small car, I feel like everyone should have the right to drive whatever vehicle they want regardless of size.

:)

I agree that improve driver training (and therefore behaviour) and even wearing your seatbelt - if only - would decimate fatalities. Will that happen?

I also agree that there is always something bigger or heavier than you. The US is not completely alone in countries where SUV-style trucks (which are considerably larger, heavier and less crashworthy than passenger cars featuring monocoque bodyshells and road-based drivetrains/roadwheels), make up the majority of vehicles, but it is by far BMW's largest market of that type. If BMW designed their 3-series to withstand impacts of trucks incapable of reasonable, controlled deformation they would all weigh two tons, and no-one outside the US - excepting Canada and Australia, both very small by comparison - would buy them. So a 3 series which can withstand being rammed by a large utility vehicle (masquerading as family transport) and protecting the lives and well-being of those aboard is never going to happen and it's quite pointless to expect it.

You certainly have the right to drive what you like, but if you can't buy it, you can't buy it!

shabbaman

11-06-2003, 07:53 AM

I was writing something down in my car and took my seatbelt off for a few minutes. I had just entered the highway when this car ran a stop and crossed in front of me...........

The insurance adjuster estimated that I t-boned the other car at 40MPH. Both of our cars were totalled. Immediately after the impact I opened the door and walked out. I was in a 40 mile per hour accident and I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. The car I was driving...2000 328i.

In reading this thread I can accept that some people are now sceptical about the E46's safety in side impacts however I can't accept that some people believe this car is all of a sudden unsafe at all. Don't forget that the E46 received a best pick in IIHS's test and IIHS went to great lengths in their pictures of the accident results to explain WHY the BMW is safer than it's competition. Granted, this car was tested in 2000 so a lot of cars have stepped up since then.

Still, after my experience I am convinced of BMW capacity for safety with their cars.

Phil F

11-06-2003, 09:04 AM

If BMW designed their 3-series to withstand impacts of trucks incapable of reasonable, controlled deformation they would all weigh two tons.... So a 3 series which can withstand being rammed by a large utility vehicle (masquerading as family transport) and protecting the lives and well-being of those aboard is never going to happen and it's quite pointless to expect it.

Well, it might be unreasonable to expect complete protection. However, there is a lot of room for improvement. I would offer as evidence here the side-impact performance of the new Saab 9-3. (See the European NCAP tests.) This vehicle weighs roughly the same as the e46 and outperforms it by a huge margin.

racerdave

11-07-2003, 07:35 AM

I am concerned about safety as I have a 20-mo-old boy.

The E46 is quite good in all the ratings. Is the Saab better in side impact? Perhaps. But I do not enjoy driving a Saab. Will that slightly better rating deter me from buying a BMW?

No.

The E46's ratings are still near the top of their class.

And more importantly, it is light years ahead of my 99 Ford Contour.

In the end, each of us has to weight the numbers and make a choice.

To me, the E46 is, by most measures, a safe car. And a significant step up for me in safety compared to my current car.

For you? Well, that's your decision, so take your time and do what is right... for you.

Phil F

11-07-2003, 08:39 AM

The E46's ratings are still near the top of their class.

The e46's ratings are "near the top of their class" only in terms of front collision. As concerns side impact for the driver and front passenger they're amongst the worst. (Rear protection is much better than front.)

The pelvic g rating by NHTSA was (as I recall) 136. I was told a fellow at NHTSA ("Nate") that had that figure reached 150gs, the car would have been given a "failing" mark.

If you love your BMW and are willing to live with this risk, that's great. (Hey, I bought two BMWs last year.) But a lot of folks on this board seem to be in a state of denial about the fact that a front side-impact in an e46 is not a good thing.