It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Of course cassitc would be more impressed with the Odyssey after having a Windstar that soured him on any American brand since the Windstar had very little cargo space, 3rd row difficult to access, etc. DC sold 36,305 minivans in January 2002. Honda sold 10,796 while Ford only sold 10,405 Windstars. I imagine you will be glad to get rid of your Found On Road Dead Windstar. Good luck. Either the Odyssey or any DC minivan would be far superior to the Ford Windstar.
The poster said they were pleased with their Windstar, then you responed that he was soured on American products and trolled even further by calling it a "Found on Road Dead Windstar". Troll you say? Pot. Kettle. Black.
"And I also compared the Injury Claim Data sent to me by USAA that showed Chrysler minivans had a LOWER injury rate claim than did the 5 Star rated Windstar. Real world data is more significant and reliable than how well a company can design vehicles to perform in a crash test. Chrysler minivans are designed to drive well and AVOID crashes whereas it appears the Windstar was designed to do well in the crash test...but does not do as well when driven in the real world."
Yeah, you bring this up from time to time. Yet, you never answer the questions people ask when you do. Let's try again:
1) How do you separate driver profile from the element of crashworthiness in this data?
2) If you look at the data, you will notice significant differences between identical twin vehicles like Villager/Quest or T&C/Grand Caravan. If this data is a good measure of the real world, why are twin vehicles different at all?
3) Insurance companies base rates on claims data. If someone gets a discount with company A, then switches to Company B which does not have a discount based on their claims history, does their car instantly become less safe?
Claims data is not a directly useful resource for crashworthiness comparisons. It varies based on driver profile, and from company to company. If a vehicle has a much higher than average injury or death rate, then that might raise a red flag. As it turns out, most minivans have rates lower than the average vehicle. Only Aerostar has a higher than average death rate, and no minivan had a worse than average injury rate. Ironically, the Caravan/Grand Caravan and Voyager/Grand Voyager were among the few minivans that were not substantially better than average for injury losses. Finally, the data does not reflect the most recent model years 2000, 2001 and 2002 especially where vehicles have been redesigned. See also:
Every minivan has advantages and disadvantages, and not everyone has safety as a top priority in a vehicle choice. You're free to dismiss safety evaluations that don't support your vehicle choice, but don't presume the rest of us will use your distorted logic as well. Crash tests and rollover ratings are directly comparable vehicle to vehicle, and have no element of driver profile or claims variances.Personally, when I see anything below a 4-star NHTSA crash/rollover rating or worse than an "Acceptable" IIHS rating, I have serious questions as to whether the manufacturer made a safe design for angles and momentums that may differ from the crash tests. The paramaters of these crash tests are long established and well known to manufacturers. If they can't design to do well in standardized tests used widely by the media and consumers, why should I trust them to design for other scenarios?Obviously, your mileage may vary. Sienna, Odyssey and Windstar do well in all these comparisons, even the death and injury data I linked above.
The NHTSA also compiles data about Insurance costs, based only on the IIHS/HLDI data for damage susceptability. The results are normalized to an overall average of 100 for all vehicles. For the minivan/wagon category, 69 is average. Odyssey, Windstar and Sienna are all better than the category and overall average. The Chrysler vans are also below the overall average, but not the category average.
This doesn't necessarily contradict Carleton1's information from the USAA. The USAA obviously has different claims experience than all the companies tabulated by the HLDI and NHTSA.
Finally, the NHTSA says this about using insurance premiums for safety comparisons:
"In setting insurance premiums, insurance companies mainly rely on factors that are not directly related to the vehicle itself (except for its value). Rather, they mainly consider driver characteristics (such as age, gender, marital status, and driving record), the geographic area in which the vehicle is driven, how many miles are traveled, and how the vehicle is used. Therefore, to obtain complete information about insurance premiums, you should contact insurance companies or their agents directly.
Insurance companies do not generally adjust their premiums on the basis of data reflecting the crashworthiness of different vehicles. However, some companies adjust their premiums for personal injury protection and medical payments coverage if the insured vehicle has features that are likely to improve its crashworthiness, such as air bags."
Just another thing to consider if you believe insurance premiums or injury/death/collision rates are a good indicator of crashworthiness on their own.
Built-in child seats are a nice convenience, but have some serious shortcomings as a primary child restraint. I wouldn't mind having a built-in carseat for an emergency, but I have no doubt that my aftermarket seats are as good or better for a variety of reasons. See:
http://www.car-safety.org/carguide.htmlSome built-in child seats aren't all they're cracked up to be:http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_984090,00.html
Need help navigating? email@example.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Help | About Us | Contact Us | Careers | Affiliate Program | Dealer Center | Privacy Statement | Visitor Agreement | Membership Agreement
Your Ad Choices | Site Map | Glossary | Mobile | Developers
© Edmunds.com, Inc.