Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Suzuki Verona

1161719212260

Comments

  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Just to get the forum moving on...any news of crash tests on the verona?.
    What is the mileage generally obtained by the forum members..on city roads and highway?. Also do give how many miles have you travelled?.
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    My Verona has just turned 4850 miles. On the last two tanks I have driven 380 and 377 miles. Both times my mileage has been 25.41 and 25.40 MPG respectively. My daily commute is about one-third city and two-thirds highway driving.
  • Just over 1300 miles now. Milage around 17-18mpg in city, have not had it on the hwy for a trip. I have had only very minor problems (2) with my Verona and they were taken care of in a timely manner by the dealer. I still like the car and think I got a very good auto for the money
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    Cannot recall if it was posted before so forgive me if it has.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_- id=7599
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Thanks for the input forum members. My Verona is at 1300 miles. I am still evaluating milage. Most of my driving is in the city. Mopar67, that review was one of the first that came out on the Verona. Veronaowner..what were the "minor" problems?.
  • One was the rr seat belt. It would not expand (pull out). The dealer replaced the complete seat belt and no problem since. One was a cover like panel on the right side of the mechanism for the sun roof. A piece was broken and again replaced by the dealer and no problems since. The broken piece made a rattling noise.
    That is the extent of "problems" and the dealer was more than cooperative to make the repair.
  • Six months old, 5200 miles and very satisfied with my EX. I don't pay close attention to gas mileage but believe it is 20 to 25 mpg. A couple of scratches on the plastic rear bumper (I guess from loading and unloading the trunk) and a strange little dent on the hood (popping out). Otherwise, I'm very impressed with the ride, performance and fit and finish. Especially with the fit and finish. No squeaks, rattles, loose or flimsy parts. I've been a volvo owner and fan for many years and this car has not dissapointed in comparison. I just hope the car is successful, gains a loyal following and aftermarket parts become readily available. I wonder how well it is selling for Suzuki.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Thanks veronaowner and boughtaverona for your comments. I went online and saw figures for sales of verona. I think I saw that in feb they sold 770 units. Generally the Sales of Suzuki have been on the upswing with the surprise surge being ...guess...Forenza!!!.The Forenza sold more than 1100 units I think. The sales of the aerio appeared to be on the downswing. Do verify from the internet about my reading...the figures may have changed.
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    My goodness it’s such a coincidence you mentioned Volvo boughtaverona. Just this morning I was admiring a new Volvo S40 as I drove to work. It had all the styling cues of the Toyota Corolla CE. Those bold , brash accents of anodized black trim certainly emboldened the the harmony of angular curves. I checked out the base price of the S40(stripped) and learned it was just $4500.00 more than the fully loaded Verona EX. And all that safety delicately disguised beneath the pedestrian styling. The engine is a turbo 1.9 and has 177lbs of torque. It comes with a five speed automatic transmission as well. That drive train nets an additional 2 mpg both city and highway over the Verona’s 2.5 inline with a four speed auto. That’s just $2500.00 per MPG. It also has a “marginal” rating on the 5 mph bumper bump tests administered by the IIHS. It’s enough to give a Verona driver “owner’s envy”. Just think of the smug pleasure you would get by paying all those extra taxes and registration fees. It’s tempting me to trade in my Verona.
  • Tekrek - Since we are both Verona owners maybe Pat the host will cut us a little slack in digressing :) I can't spout off the specs like you, but I have read favorable reviews on the 2004.5 model of the Volvo S40 about to come out and they have a wagon model too. Should give the Passat competition. I do have a little envy, but no regrets. I won't be trading in my Verona.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    There is nodoubt that the Volvo is a premium car and hence the extra price. What we are talking is really another segment or class price wise. One of Verona's plus points is that it has tremendous value for the amount you pay. For that price...say for a S model..you could be not so far off a fully loaded Corolla or Civic!!!. If you can spend that "extra" whats wrong with going with the maxima or accord?.
    I for one would not even consider the thought of a trade in!!! I am very satisfied with my Verona.
  • carrinocarrino Posts: 39
    Check out the crash test for the verona on www.iihs.com
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote "Check out the crash test for the verona on www.iihs.com"

    "Institute of Integral Handwriting Studies"???????
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0403.htm

    The Verona did much better then the Leganza but it's still behind the game. If you compare the damage to the Galant, you will see the safety cage was more stressed and showed signs of buckling. It was also the only new car tested to have a poor injury rating. I find it interesting that the dummy's leg wacked the center console area hard enough to break the heck out of the plastic. No other car showed that kind of damage.

    For those who like to discredit IIHS, you should finally see their testing leads to good things since their test brought to light a serious fault in the design of the airbag that could have led to serious head injuries. It was the IIHS's test that led to the safety recall that veronaowner experienced.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The link should have been posted as www.iihs.org, a simple error, relax. Here's the link to the website that shows the ranking of the Verona in comparison to the rest of the class. http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midinexp.htm
    Not bad.

    (Ingtonge, well said, by the way)

    ~alpha
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    The amount of interior damage is amazing. The whole center stack is broken. I had a similar accident in my 2002 Civic Si where I hit someone almost head-on going 45-50MPH and there was nothing askew in the interior other than the air bags deploying.
  • bmcclainbmcclain Posts: 39
    "For those who like to discredit IIHS...test brought to light a serious fault in the design of the airbag that could have led to serious head injuries."

    The airbag issue has nothing to do with design.
    "Suzuki engineers subsequently determined there was a manufacturing defect -- the airbag inflation module was improperly wired."
    Better GM/Suzuki quality control? I don't think that the Daewoo Magnus had this problem.

    While we are given a generally poor view of the IIHS test results, the dummy's knees are positioned against the dash. It is clearly evident in the Subaru Legacy post test picture. The measurements say that the dash panel only moved rearward one centimeter, on the right side which is out of view, and zero on the left side. It is impossible to not allow the knees to impact the dash in this position.

    Some people might drive with their knees against the dash, but I don't, so I can safely throw the leg "injury" measurements out. The Verona had some of the very lowest head impact measurement ratings, better than the Malibu for one, which costs more. I can recover much better from a leg injury than a head injury.

    The floorpan does move to the bottom of the a-pillar in most cars. This forces the feet back, and the legs up, at unnatural angles if the person is too far forward, as in these tests. Leg "injuries" from this unnatural position? Yes.

    Saying this cars plastic broke more than the other is frivolous. Things bend. Things break. This is an extreme test (nothing like anonymousposts's crash). If the dash moves rearward, the center console can be sheared. Is it from shearing, or the leg impact? It is hard to tell from the very small pictures.

    "the safety cage was more stressed and showed signs of buckling"

    Did you bother looking at the crash measurements? The two Veronas had wild variations, just at the twice tested Altima and Elantra have. The first Verona's A-pillar moved only 2 centimeters rearward. The second Verona was shown (6). It goes to show that even among the small fraction of crashes that the tests try to recreate, even among them, considerable variations occur. The statistics and ratings made are nearly rendered useless by these variations alone!
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    "Some people might drive with their knees against the dash, but I don't, so I can safely throw the leg "injury" measurements out. The Verona had some of the very lowest head impact measurement ratings, better than the Malibu for one, which costs more. I can recover much better from a leg injury than a head injury."

    That's nice bmmclain but I seriously doubt people's knees hit the lower panel because they drive that way. You'd be amazed at what body parts contact the interior of the car during a crash.

    "The floorpan does move to the bottom of the a-pillar in most cars. This forces the feet back, and the legs up, at unnatural angles if the person is too far forward, as in these tests. Leg "injuries" from this unnatural position? Yes."

    So how much further back should a person sit then?
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    "Things bend. Things break. This is an extreme test (nothing like anonymousposts's crash)."

    I'm sorry, I didn't know you were there when I had my accident. I was cruising down a 4 lane highway at approx. 50 MPH when a Grand AM made a left hand turn in front of me. I had no time to respond so my car was still accelerating when I hit her. The impact was enough to spin my car around at a 180 degree angle (I ended up facing the opposite direction on the highway) and the impact was also strong enough to send her car 10ft to the side of the impact. They were taken to the hospital while I had no bruises, scratches (other than a slight mark on each arm from where the airbag deployed), or other injuries to speak of. In my SI both doors still opened, no glass shattered, there were no interior trim pieces broken, and there was certainly no rearward movement by the dash. By the way, I am also 5'2 which means I have to sit pretty close to the steering wheel so interior intrusion could be/would have been harmful.

    If you look at the Verona the roof shows signs of bucking and the interior was destroyed. Regardless of what you think I would have little piece of mind knowing that my dash will crack and my roof start to buckle when other sedans suffer from neither fate in the same crash.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I KNEW you would be all up in arms about the test, I was just waiting for you to erupt. You didnt disappoint.

    So, my question is if the dummy's knees are touching the dashboard, why is it that an overwhelming majority of cars tested now do not produce any leg injuries? I still find your assessment of the dummy positioning rudimentary, as you are not privy to the specifications by which the IIHS tests (nor am I).

    "Did you bother looking at the crash measurements? The two Veronas had wild variations, just at the twice tested Altima and Elantra have. The first Verona's A-pillar moved only 2 centimeters rearward. The second Verona was shown (6). It goes to show that even among the small fraction of crashes that the tests try to recreate, even among them, considerable variations occur. The statistics and ratings made are nearly rendered useless by these variations alone!"

    I dont think 4cm is a wild variation. More important than the numbers specifically is the repeatability in the patterns of damage. I cant think of a case in which deformation of the front end as well as any deformation of the passenger space has not been startlingly identical. There are normal, and statistically acceptable variations between each car that rolls off the assembly line. (This is the same reason why, lets stay.. Car and Driver can test one example of a car, and later test AN IDENTICALLY EQUIPPED model, but this time, its 5 tenths of a second faster/slower to 60, or stops 8 feet shorter/longer.)

    bmcclain- Should we discredit all empirical evidence?

    Personally, I think the Verona provided very good safety in the IIHS test, with injury measures not life-threatening, and an occupant compartment that did not sustain significant damage.

    Its fine that you dislike the IIHS testing. The bottom line is, the testing has enhanced automotive safety in this country. Your contentions appear valid on the surface, but are based on incorrect logic and/or unproven assumptions (such as the "knees touching the dashboard"). Youre free to think as you wish. Just dont expect the majority of others here to buy it. Personally, I dont get the impression you know as much about crash testing as you like to try and convey. It was only about... what, two or so months a ago that you were devaluing the IIHS tests because you felt that they forced automakers to design cars with "rigid" front ends, which is completely opposite of what the testing has helped car mfrs. to do. (Recap: Its crush zone, then rigid safety cage).

    ~alpha
  • terryg4terryg4 Posts: 5
    Can you quote any studies or organizations that validate crash testing with the results of real-life accidents?

    Do you doubt that the manufacturers that crash test a lot, and charge alot more for their cars across all lines, don't engineer their products for those known crash tests in much the same way that they engineer for the gas mileage tests?

    Have you ever heard any statements like - "Because we scored 'G' instead of 'A' we can gaurantee you xx.xx% higher probability of having better outcome in your next real-life crash"?

    Do any crash tests results determine what would have happened had the speeds used been 3mph faster or slower? Are the 'Gs', 'As' and 'Ms' really any measure of real-life crashes, or just hopefully?

    When you can answer these questions, you can say that there is a significant reason why the Verona's results should significantly effect anyones buying decision.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    At Last the test results are out. Frankly I think the Verona did better than many expected. This is especially the case for the first mid size Suzuki in US. If you compare with the first accord or Camry or Gallant then I think Verona has done well. Nevertheless Suzuki Engineers should address the problems for the defeciencies noted in the test. I think they are on the move as observed in the reactions from Suzuki after they saw the tests. I am sure they would work towards improving the Car. There is always something positive to be observed from these tests.
  • terryg4terryg4 Posts: 5
    Can you quote any studies or organizations that validate crash testing with the results of real-life accidents?

    Do you doubt that the manufacturers that crash test a lot, and charge alot more for their cars across all lines, don't engineer their products for those known crash tests in much the same way that they engineer for the gas mileage tests?

    Have you ever heard any statements like - "Because we scored 'G' instead of 'A' we can gaurantee you xx.xx% higher probability of having better outcome in your next real-life crash"?

    Do any crash tests results determine what would have happened had the speeds used been 3mph faster or slower? Are the 'Gs', 'As' and 'Ms' really any measure of real-life crashes, or just hopefully?

    When you can answer these questions, you can say that there is a significant reason why the Verona's results should significantly effect anyones buying decision.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    It doesn't matter what caused the airbag problem. You can't dispute the fact Suzuki didn't know about the problem until IIHS tested their car. If the IIHS hadn't discovered the problem, it might have been awhile before the problem surfaced and someone could have been injured or killed. Thus why the IIHS tests provide very valuable information.

    As for your thoughts on leg injuries, I don't know why you seem to think they aren't valid. I looked at numerous pics of damage after the accident and the dummy was always positioned the same distance away from the steering wheel and in almost all the cars the knees were located a good distance away from the dash. They place the dummy so that the arms reach the steering wheel and the legs reach the pedals at the optimal position. If they purposely put the dummy's legs up against the dash, wouldn't the dummy look abnormally close to the steering wheel and wouldn't the knees look like they touch the dash on every car? This is simply not the case. Look at the Altima: the left leg showed a possible injury but it was plenty far away from the dash in the pic. Leg injuries can come from the force of the floorpan pushing in and upwards or from the brake pedal moving back, not necessarily from the dash itself. Variations in dash design may put the dash closer to the knees in some cars, like the Legacy for instance. But notice that although the knees appear close to the dash in the Legacy, there were no leg injuries. So what is your explanation for that? Also, in the case of the Verona, it states the driver's seat pitched forward which would put the legs closer to the dash. As for the interior plastic breaking, you can easily tell it was caused by the right knee hitting the dash. Don't you see the clearly marked X noting where the knee made contact and the subsequent breakage around that mark? As for the buckling of the safety cage, I stand by my statement. Compare pics of the A pillar and roof structure. The top rated cars show very little to no damage in this area. The Verona shows buckling and deformation. If you can't see these simple facts, then I don't know what to tell you. All I gotta say is your opinion on the test is way off base and has no merit.
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Posts: 1,031
    With these new crash test results out, I'm expecting that the "refreshened" Verona might come out earlier than expected. The Magnus refreshening has been in the works at GMDAT and well, they might respond to the crash test results sufficiently. GM is after all slightly reworking the Bu for 05 because of the bumper tests. That's just my speculation and hope for 05.
  • bmcclainbmcclain Posts: 39
    Can you quote any studies or organizations that validate crash testing with the results of real-life accidents?
    "CRASH TEST RESULTS ARE GOOD PREDICTORS OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES IN ON-THE-ROAD CRASHES"
    Yes: http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm

    Placing a 5’ 8” dummy (IIHS) up near the dash is asking for an “injury.” We all know how the IIHS is subject to “special interests.”

    So how much further back should a person sit then?

    How far away do you all sit from the dash, particularly the knees? I wanted to know this before. I personally sit as far away that is comfortable and allows optimal control, which in my case is not near the dash. I have tried sitting as they are pictured by the IIHS, and could not bear it, much less drive.

    Anonymousposts, you crash –was- nothing like the offset crash test performed by the IIHS. As you describe it, the other car was hit in the side. It was not traveling the same speed, nor hit you at 40% width head on (what the IIHS replicates). The tires of the other car gave away long before the IIHS barrier would have should your car hit it. The other car was not bolted to the ground, but after an instant, sliding on its tires. Therefore, the impact was less severe, and stresses on your car’s “safety cage” much less. Please, apples to apples if you are going to say “my car had less damage than car X from a test.” Is your peace of mind a delusion then? It is good to hear that you were kept safe.

    My theory is you are 5’ 2”. So your legs should be shorter in length than a 5’ 8” person/dummy’s. So, if you sit closer, your knee should still be in around the same position as a taller person sitting farther away (torso).

    So, my question is if the dummy's knees are touching the dashboard, why is it that an overwhelming majority of cars tested now do not produce any leg injuries?

    That question isn’t as important as ‘why are the dummies placed in a clear danger zone when it doesn’t jive with driving?’ There are always even more severe crashes than these tests. Why do this, if it is uncomfortable and impractical to drive in this position? Is it comfortable for you to sit the way they are in the crashes? It isn’t for me, and I am of a normal length and proportion.

    as you are not privy to the specifications by which the IIHS tests (nor am I)

    Exactly. We are using (some less than others) every little thing that the IIHS releases. Tiny images, no dummy placement measurements or reasoning, and so on. Why? What are they hiding? Why hide it? Especially if they want me to trust them with their “findings”, even before the fact that insurance companies fund them and therefore easily open to “special interests.”

    If our evaluations of the tests are ”rudimentary,” then so are buyers’ evaluations of the crash results. In this case, everyone who simply looks at G, A, M, P and decides on “safety” is making a poorly informed rudimentary assessment/decision. How helpful! We should be able to read the fine print. We certainly need to for advertisements, contracts, and so on. Our lives could possibly rely on this choice!

    4 cm is a wild variation in this context. 2 cm versus 6 cm. It is the exact same test, same car, and same external factors. Also, when it causes someone to have a negative opinion (as below). This is the “dramatic effect” that I have discussed before that the media loves (and apparently a few here). The 2cm movement wouldn’t have been nearly as visible that the first Verona had. The undeniable point is there are many of these variations in the test results. The variations affect the final rating, which then affects buyer John’s purchase. And with above, these variations are not explained by the IIHS. Variations make the test less worthy.

    Compare pics of the A pillar and roof structure. The top rated cars show very little to no damage in this area. The Verona shows buckling and deformation.

    2 centimeters of rearward movement is “very little.” However, the second Verona had 6, as shown. My point is, you cannot compare these when the other cars were only tested once. In that case, the Verona had 2 cm of rearward movement. Their second tests will vary widely as well. After all, all of the other cars tested more than once had several large differences in measurements.

    "are based on incorrect logic and/or unproven assumptions (such as the "knees touching the dashboard").
    This was clearly proven.

    I cant think of a case in which deformation of the front end as well as any deformation of the passenger space has not been startlingly identical.
    The Suzuki Verona is a clear example of this.

    Just dont expect the majority of others here to buy it.
    As others gobble down what the IIHS feeds them? Ironic, isn’t it?

    I agree with your reasoning terryg4. However, the below G ratings for the Verona are leg/foot, methods that I have serious doubts about (excluding the kinematics - A).

    Ingtonge, I’m not disputing that there was a problem. I corrected you; it was a manufacturing defect, not a design defect.

    I looked at numerous pics of damage after the accident and the dummy was always positioned the same distance away from the steering wheel and in almost all the cars the knees were located a good distance away from the dash.

    They are not a good distance away from the dash.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You have still failed to answer many questions.

    1) This one is a restatement, in attempt to clarify, since you did not answer satisfactorily.

    If a huge problem is that the IIHS tests cars with dummys knees against the dashboard, why is it that most cars of the 2003/2004 cars do NOT inflict injury on the legs?

    This is my question. This is not a question about placing dummies in "danger zones" or whatever. Because clearly, for many cars, regardless of where you think the IIHS is placing the dummies, it is NOT a "danger zone" since forces recorded are low.

    2) All of the other cars tested more than once did NOT necessarily have significant variations in the measured cm of deformation. Additionally, as I stated before, the repeatability in patterns of deformation is much more telling than the precise measurement. The point is that cars will crush in a certain way, REPEATEDLY, in the same crash tests. "2 centimeters of rearward movement is “very little.” However, the second Verona had 6, as shown." IMO, 6 cm is still pretty insignificant, and does not change the Veronas overall Structure rating. The roof buckling is more troubling. If you review the Dateline NBC presentation of the crash tests which show BOTH the first and second Veronas, despite the difference of 4 cm, the roof showed buckling in BOTH crashes. As noted above, the repeatability in patterns of deformation is the key.

    Additionally, you state that "Variations make the test less worthy." What do you not understand about the fact that slight variations in structural rigidity between each vehicle manufactured, and in fact, all facets of performance, are INHERENT in mass production.

    3) You need to re-read anonymousposts crash story. In your previous post, you are basically telling him how his crash happened, which isnt what he just posted days ago. I'd tend to believe his account of the crash over yours, call me crazy.

    4) Why is it that you have SUCH incredibly reservations about this crash test, whose details are more readily available than the ones NHTSA provides regarding their tests?

    Why is it that you take no objection to the fact that NHTSA offers star ratings for vehicles in side impacts that DO NOT take into account the HIC recorded on the driver. Essentially, in NHTSA testing, a car can earn a 5 star impact rating but have a HIC in the 900s, perilously close to the threshold (1000) typically considered life-threatening. Why is that not a problem for you? Perhaps because the dummy's knees are positioned "correctly"?

    Why is it that this test is performed almost identically in Japan and Europe and utilized by manufacturers worldwide in vehicle design, but YOU are the lone person that finds the test highly erroneous, and dismiss its value?

    Why is it that you do NOT concede that the EXACT article you cite, http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm PROVES the very idea that, ceteris paribus, you and your loved ones ARE SAFER in cars that perform better in this kind of test than cars that perform only "marginally" or "acceptably"?

    Finally, you acknowledge to Intonge that there was indeed a "problem" with the mfg. of the airbag system. But nowhere do you concede that without the IIHS testing, this may not have been discovered until it was too late for one exponentially unlucky consumer. This is not an isolated incident. Similar defect, whether in design or manufacture, have been found in cars ranging from the Infiniti Q45 to the Toyota Sienna. Without the offset testing done by the IIHS, such deficiencies might not have been discovered.

    ~alpha
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    They are not a good distance away from the dash

    What is a good distance? I want to make sure I am sitting at the proper distance away from the dash in my vehicle.

    Inquiring minds want to know.
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    It’s amazing what some people will do to force their bias and prejudices upon others in open forums. I have included some remarks from the identical IIHS tests of the Suzuki Verona and the Volvo S40. I’m certain the reputation of Volvo being a safe automobile is well known to those in this group. I won’t beat my opinion into anyone’s head, however, let it be known I consider the daggers of many of the Verona detractors in this group to be poisoned and of little use to those trying to make an informed buying decision.

    IIHS FRONTAL OFFSET CRASH TEST

    VERONA: OVERALL EVALUATION: ACCEPTABLE The driver space was maintained well in both frontal offset crash tests, but measures indicate the likelihood of leg injuries. Advanced front airbag and safety belt systems and daytime running lights are pluses.
    VOLVO S40: OVERALL EVALUATION: GOOD The driver space was maintained well in the frontal offset crash test, but measures indicate the possibility of lower leg injuries. Advanced front airbag and safety belt systems, side airbags with head protection, front seats designed to minimize whiplash injuries, and daytime running lights are pluses.

    VERONA: STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: GOOD In both tests, there was minimal to moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel.
    VOLVO S40: STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: GOOD There was minimal to moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel.

    VERONA: RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled in the second test. During rebound, the dummy’s head contacted the B-pillar, roof rail, and grab handle. Also, the driver's seat pitched forward slightly and tipped toward the door.
    VOLVO S40: RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled. During rebound, the dummy's head tilted outward, brushed the A-pillar, and continued partway out the open side window. It then contacted the head restraint.

    IVERONA: NJURY MEASURES: RIGHT LEG/FOOT POOR Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions. However, forces on the right leg indicate the likelihood of lower leg injury. Forces on the left leg indicate the possibility of lower leg injury. Head accelerations from the B-pillar, roof rail, and grab handle contacts were low
    VOLVO S40: INJURY MEASURES: RIGHT LEG/FOOT ACCEPTABLE Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions. However, forces on the right tibia indicated the possibility of lower leg injuries. Head acceleration from the A-pillar contact was negligible.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    " I find it more than convenient, after the cars offset crash tested are all almost rated G"

    Interesting that even though, according to you, almost all cars are rated good the Verona still only managed to rate Acceptable.

    "THIS is why they place the dummies where they will be injured. "

    If this statement is true then why are there sedans that exhibited very little risk of injury?

    "How many inches away from the dash are your knees in the driving position?"

    My husband is 6'6 therefore his knee is touching the dash in many cars. He is in a position where rearward movement of the dash could cause injury. The seating position of the dummy in the IIHS test would not matter if the Verona could limit rearward movement of the dash AND keep the dummy in one place. Next you are going to say that the dash cracking is a safety feature but I've never heard of a manufacturer intentionally creating a crumple zone in the dash.

    Regardless of whether my crash was similar to the IIHS test or not, other sedans in the Veronas class do not have the same level of interior damage or possibility of injury. Fact is, the Verona experienced dummy movement and interior intrusion at a level higher than the top-rated sedans.

    One thing my crash did exhibit is that the IIHS/NHTSA tests are a good indicator of how a car will perform in a real-world crash. The safety cage of my SI was maintained accordingly considering it's 5-star performance. The Grand Am I hit was in much worse shape, despite being larger and 300lbs heavier, as you would expect by viewing it's lackluster safety ratings.

    I guess all of this just exists to prove one point, you get what you pay for and in the Verona's case that ain't much.
Sign In or Register to comment.