Nobody here talk about the latest IIHS test?

In the most recent round of IIHS results only Honda's (HMC) Acura TL and Volvo S60 earned the Institute's top rating of "good." Nissan's (NSANY) Infiniti G earned a rating of " Acceptable." The Acura TSX, BMW 3-series, Ford' (F, Fortune 500)s Lincoln MKZ and Volkswage (VLKAF)n CC earned a rating of "marginal," the second-worst of four possible ratings.

The Mercedes-Benz C-class, Lexus IS and ES and the Audi A4 earned the worst rating, "poor," in the new test.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/auto...rs-crash-test/

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=15

I guess if you are about to hit something make sure you hit it square on....

yea, most cars that hit at that angle are ****ed

The low scores are due to a brand new test they added. Prior to this year, they tested full front and off set crashes, as well as side impact, rear impact, etc etc. This year, they added an extreme off set crash test where only a small amount of the car, less than 20% actually hits something. This is very common with telephone polls and trees. Nothing like having the contents of the wheel well pushed into your legs.

It is a bit disappointing, but certainly highlights some of the value brought on by these organizations. I suspect despite the results, in 5 year to 7 years, all cars will start scoring well in the test. Guess I will avoid telephone polls until then, or as others have said, hit it dead on!

I did laugh at Mercedes response to the test. They basically said "We call BS" our cars are safe.

I hit a traffic light straight on about 20 years ago, pretty low speed, about 20 mph. The car was < a year old, and it was written off. You don't want to hit narrow immovable objects.

It is a disappointment that BMW is not a leader in safety as they had been considered back in the 1970's and 1980's. Safety should be a top priority for a premier European brand trying to justify high sticker prices. I think BMW and other car manufacturers have decided that their prime focus should be on adding invasive and needless technologies, and gas savings to boost sales as opposed to safety as their prime objective.

I think we will see more structural weaknesses as car companies use more weight savings components for better MPG. And, if the European car companies keep going down these paths, what is going to separate them from the Toyotas of the world who offer features without solid foundations?

That's what ASS is for. When PDC senses you're close to an offset crash it just stops the engine, problem solved. You can even program your 1-8 shortcut keys to simulate it.

BJ

Originally Posted by beden1

It is a disappointment that BMW is not a leader in safety as they had been considered back in the 1970's and 1980's. Safety should be a top priority for a premier European brand trying to justify high sticker prices. I think BMW and other car manufacturers have decided that their prime focus should be on adding invasive and needless technologies, and gas savings to boost sales as opposed to safety as their prime objective.

I think we will see more structural weaknesses as car companies use more weight savings components for better MPG. And, if the European car companies keep going down these paths, what is going to separate them from the Toyotas of the world who offer features without solid foundations?

Really?

Toyota currently has 11 models, from small to large, which are IIHS top safety picks.

Toyota also has, and has had for many many years, one of the highest predictable reliability scores of any automaker, by just about any measure (JD Power, Consumer Reports, TrueDelta, take your pick)

How can you say Toyota vehicles don't have solid foundations?

They are as safe, if not safer, than BMWs and are much more reliable.

Its not like BMW is anything special when it comes to safety.

Of course you can't compare driving dynamics/pleasure between Toyota and BMW, but please don't imply that Toyota makes crappy cars with lousy foundations, because that's simply not true.

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

That's what ASS is for. When PDC senses you're close to an offset crash it just stops the engine, problem solved. You can even program your 1-8 shortcut keys to simulate it.

BJ

BMW needs to make sure IIHS turns the ASS/PDC on before the test next time.

Originally Posted by beden1

It is a disappointment that BMW is not a leader in safety as they had been considered back in the 1970's and 1980's. Safety should be a top priority for a premier European brand trying to justify high sticker prices. I think BMW and other car manufacturers have decided that their prime focus should be on adding invasive and needless technologies, and gas savings to boost sales as opposed to safety as their prime objective.

I think we will see more structural weaknesses as car companies use more weight savings components for better MPG. And, if the European car companies keep going down these paths, what is going to separate them from the Toyotas of the world who offer features without solid foundations?

beden1, I'm sorry, but this may be the single most uninformed, ignorant post I have seen on Bimmerfest in my seven years here. Did you even bother looking at pictures or reading the actual report of the results by the IIHS? No serious injuries indicated. The probability of left leg or foot injuries and possibility of right leg and foot injuries. NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY LIFE THREATENING.

This new test and this report is nothing more than a red herring. It is not possible to construct a car that is totally indestructible.

didnt even know i have knee airbags

Originally Posted by justinnum1

didnt even know i have knee airbags

You do. But, of course, BMW is just a cheap ass company that doesn't give a rat's ass about your safety. They just want your money. Just ask all those yahoos who are walking around alive today because they were in a Bimmer when they crashed.

Originally Posted by tagheuer

Its not like BMW is anything special when it comes to safety.

Of course you can't compare driving dynamics/pleasure between Toyota and BMW, but please don't imply that Toyota makes crappy cars with lousy foundations, because that's simply not true.

They did get the worst score (and while I agree they sure don't suck, they also don't deserve those freebie toyota points they always get on reliability and safety) along with audi and mb (good luck to anyone in an is whose legs those are), but i'll take bmw safety over them any day.

See the 335i top speed crash vs. a tree where the driver had a broken nose (and killed his two friends ), or the 186mph crash of the new m5, the e46 or 36 crash vs. a mac truck whose kids survived, in md some lady took on a KFC at top speed and lived (killed the passanger though), nobody is immune from death in a moving vehicle unless Gen Dynamics starts selling M1 Abrams to the public, (in-which case watch out trees ) I just know if I'm going to crash I want to do it in a BMW

Volvo is tops but they've got nothing else to do since their engines, and electronics suck
Wasn't shocked to see Acura, but they're always quite about their accomplishments.

Originally Posted by tturedraider

This new test and this report is nothing more than a red herring. It is not possible to construct a car that is totally indestructible.

I agree with this statement but I think it important to mention a couple of vehicles scored favorably on this new test while BMW did not. So while it's not possible to make a totally indestructible car we know others have made safer cars...at least when it comes to this particular test.

Originally Posted by tagheuer

Really?

Toyota currently has 11 models, from small to large, which are IIHS top safety picks.

They are as safe, if not safer, than BMWs and are much more reliable.

Its not like BMW is anything special when it comes to safety.

You did read the article right? The only Toyota models tested both scored below the 328i and in the unacceptable category.

OH and if you visit www.safercar.gov and look at the manufacturers' test scores, you find some interesting statistics. Referring to 2012 models, ALL BMW models tested are given 5 star overall ratings. However, referring back to those Toyotas tested 33 models earn 4 stars, 9 models earn 5 stars and 1 model earned 3 stars.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

Originally Posted by SuperTerp

Volvo is tops but they've got nothing else to do since their engines, and electronics suck
.

Have you driven a Volvo S60 R spec?

Originally Posted by tturedraider

This new test and this report is nothing more than a red herring. It is not possible to construct a car that is totally indestructible.

I don't think so. Engines are now designed to drop down in a severe frontal impact so it does not push into the cabin. It is not unreasonable to have the same safety feature for the front wheels.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Have you driven a Volvo S60 R spec?

Nope and never would , I did see the review on TtAC from Dec 11'. and was shocked when I read it... Volvos just seem so irrelevant now (at least to me )

I'll stick with the n54 for now, if I need to win more I'll buy an m5 or better

I did get spanked by an IS-f and it was pretty cool to see.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Have you driven a Volvo S60 R spec?

What are you, the King Of Not-BMW's?

If there's a car out there that is pseudo-3 Series competition, you're it's champion. Why?

BJ

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

What are you, the King Of Not-BMW's?

If there's a car out there that is pseudo-3 Series competition, you're it's champion. Why?

There's a difference between championing a vehicle and asking someone if they've ever driven it.

Originally Posted by SuperTerp

Nope and never would , I did see the review on TtAC from Dec 11'. and was shocked when I read it... Volvos just seem so irrelevant now (at least to me )

I'll stick with the n54 for now, if I need to win more I'll buy an m5 or better

I did get spanked by an IS-f and it was pretty cool to see.

Since you were very specific about how Volvo engine sucked, I thought to ask.

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

What are you, the King Of Not-BMW's?

If there's a car out there that is pseudo-3 Series competition, you're it's champion. Why?

BJ

I don't see myself drive a Volvo anytime soon either, but you don't want to be in the way of an S60 R design, no scratch that, you don't want to be in the way of the Volvo XC60 R design crossover.

Maybe why they did well in this new test, Volvo probably thought with the R design specs, the driver tends to have too much fun, more likely to crash into a power pole or a tree.

The way BJ drives, you are constantly watching all the camera images so no leaves get blown against the bumper. Crash into a tree?

Originally Posted by boltjaM3s

What are you, the King Of Not-BMW's?

If there's a car out there that is pseudo-3 Series competition, you're it's champion. Why?

BJ

It's all about post count if you haven't figured it out yet. I think he's moved on from giving BJ a BJ.

Originally Posted by sf_loft

It's all about post count if you haven't figured it out yet. I think he's moved on from giving BJ a BJ.

This from a guy still trying to crawl back into his ex's bed in vain time after time, but keeps trying.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Since you were very specific about how Volvo engine sucked, I thought to ask.

I mean you pointed out one decent hp producing engine (I guess the XC one would be two) in a lineup full of land mines, and I know I wouldn't buy it if it had 500hp, as the interior looks awful (can't comment on if the Navi is still as bad, as it was a generation ago), I just think there is more than "see it has more hp", and fortunately Stock HP numbers don't coincide with quality.

Originally Posted by dtc100

but you don't want to be in the way of an S60 R design, no scratch that, you don't want to be in the way of the Volvo XC60 R design crossover.

If I were that worried about a volvo I'd spend $495 (less then I just paid for a shirt ) on a jb4 lol.