Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Do you currently own a 2019 or newer RAM pickup? A reporter would like to speak with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 1/27 for more info.

Minivans - Domestic or Foreign

2456773

Comments

  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    Mitsubishi to release high-end minivan worldwide in 2004

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • dawn22dawn22 Posts: 2
    I'm looking to trade in my 1995, 125,000 mile Dodge Caravan SE V6 for a 2002 4 cyl 2.4 model. Can anyone tell me why I should or shouldn't go to the smaller engine? I'm looking for a reliable "kid carpooling" vehicle and I like the security of the "7 yr/100,000 mile" warranty. Any advice will be greatly appreciated!
  • ody01ody01 Posts: 100
    4 cyl engine too small for minivan. Odyssey, Sedona, GM, Windstar, etc. all have V6 engine. Many Caravan owner happier with largest 3.8L V6 engine. Have you considered Sedona with 10 year/100,000 mile warranty?
  • m1tommym1tommy Posts: 29
    Hello group, A nearby dealer has a 2000 model Mazda ES, with about every bell and whistle available. The van has 6,300 miles. I wrote it off as a completely obnoxious electric blue, but my wife, who will spend 90%+ of the time behind its wheel, really liked it.

    Long story short, we pulled up to the Mazda dealership to watch it drive off, sold. Oh well, we drove another '02 MPV LX and liked it, albeit more expensive. On our return, we learned that the family who bought the loaner ES had some sort of falling out on the way home and returned it!

    Are there any "GOTCHAS" in buying a loaner? The factory warranty is still in effect for some time (say 43k miles and 2 1/2 years... time from when the dealer "bought" it). The sticker price is right at the Edmund's "Certified Used Vehicle", of $19.5k, and indicated a willingness "to deal". We certainly don't NEED all the bells and whistles, but the price is lower than a new MPV with less stuff. I am thinking that perhaps extended warranty might be in the "dealings", as we usually keep vehicles long term.

    Advice or opinions are appreciated. We'll likely look it over again tomorrow.

    Tommy
  • ody01ody01 Posts: 100
    2002 MPV Engine more power, probably better gas mileage. Many options = more chance something break.
  • kkollwitzkkollwitz Posts: 274
    "we usually keep vehicles long term."
    Then I'd buy a new car if I could afford it.
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    "Have you considered Sedona with 10 year/100,000 mile warranty?"

    Did someone steal your password?
  • m1tommym1tommy Posts: 29
    Your points bear thought. With the warranty, the vehicle is nearly "as new". The older engine design will be scrutenized during a drive tomorrow.

    Thanks for the replies.
    Tommy
  • dawn22dawn22 Posts: 2
    I've narrowed my purchase choice to 2 models of minivans. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
    I don't need hauling power, just sound "kid-pooling" transportation. I can buy a Dodge Caravan, 3.0/6 cyl with 20,000 miles for $14,500 that has 1 yr/36,000 warranty left
    OR a new 2001 Chrysler Voyager eC with 36 miles, 2.4/4 cyl and a 100,000 mile/7 year transmission/engine warranty for $14,300.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    I drove a 4 cylinder '89 base Voyager for ten years. It was ok although I guess I really do prefer the pickup of the 6 in my current van. But I used that 7/70 warranty Chrysler offered in '89 a lot, and the 5/60 warranty was a big factor in picking my current van.

    I vote for the 4; my better half says go with the 6. lol, not much help here, but good luck picking!

    Steve
    Host
    SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
  • catamcatam Posts: 331
    One of the few times I would reccommend buying new. Used is nearly always a better deal, however, the vans you described and the use you intend, I think you will be happier long term with the 01. You have a better warranty, and the 4 cyl is adequate for the daily carpool grind. Long term you will probably find resale to be slightly better on the new van because it has less miles and is a year newer.
    Just a side note, I personally wouldn't recommend keeping the van much past the warranty, the transmissions have a scary history.
  • corvellacorvella Posts: 2
    I spent the last week test driving and researching vans. I even drove the Camry and Accord as a final test to see if I could get by with a passenger car. For less than $23K, you can get a MPV LX, with a 50,000 mile warranty. I drove the T&C, Odyssey and Sienna. In the end, I loved the foldaway third seat (only Honda and Mazda have that) and the fact that the MPV rear windows roll down (just like a car). The Honda is great is you are willing to pay MSRP and then some. I wanted a bargain. Just drove my MPV home and I must say - it's a winner. Love the radio controls on the steering wheel too.

    Zoom. Zoom. Zoom.
  • ody01ody01 Posts: 100
    Mazda MPV good bargain. Glad you like new MPV.
    Best value KIA Sedona for $19,590. Dealer discount price $18,500. Sedona best warranty 10 year 100,000 mile, bigger engine than Mazda MPV. Sedona feel large as MPV but lack magic seat like MPV and Odyssey.
    Odyssey most expensive, most space passenger and luggage, magic seat, almost best gas mileage. Sedona bargain price with many nice feature. MPV cost more than Sedona but less than Odyssey.
  • m1tommym1tommy Posts: 29
    Well, Monday, we bought an '02 model LX, white, with just the items we (well, wifey) really wanted. The sales folks were great, putting up with our 5 or 6 test drives and my repeated visits over a 10 day period. The dealer gave me a voucher, so I could buy an upgrade to leather through "Classic Soft Trim" for a substantial discount, if within the next year.

    All seem pleased with the MPV.

    Thanks to all who replied to my posts.
    Tommy
  • horiz26horiz26 Posts: 1
    I need some advice. We are a family of 6 with both parents at or over 6 ft. tall and 2 of the 4 kids are close to or past 6 ft. At least one more will reach that in the next 5 years. Minivans (a Windstar with a transmission problem at the moment) have been great for us until now, but the 2 kids have no leg room anymore (not to mention room for the size 15 shoes in the passenger area!). I would prefer a minivan, but am open to ANY suggestions on an appropriate vehicle that seats 6. Semi-reasonable gas mileage would be the 2nd priority.
  • jrush1948jrush1948 Posts: 22
    I have been reading posts, crunching numbers, comparing features, specifications, researching test results, getting price quotes, comparing rebates, taking test drives, researching extended warranties and talking to my mechanic regarding the purchase of a new 2002 mini van. I have narrowed down the field to a Voyager with 3.3 V6 or a Caravan with a 3.3 V6 (basically the same vehicles) and a Kia Sedona LX with no options. Please don't tell me how horrible these three choices are, I can't take any more pressure! I created a side by side comparison chart on the three vehicles with all of the above criteria and the Kia kept coming up the winner in most all categories. The only negative areas seem to be potential reliability, long down time for service, hard to get and expensive repair & maintenance parts and gas mileage. I am not worried about the mileage and if I get an extended 10 yr warranty with no deductible (yes I intend on keeping the vehicle for 10 yrs)I will have no real out of pocket repair expenses other than maintenance. Rental car coverage for service down time will be covered by the extended warranty. The big concern is my mechanics dislike/hate? of the Kia product. I normally trust his opinion but he doesn't work on alot of Kias and he has his own loyalty to Diamer/Chrysler products. Are there any mechanics/service managers/repair or parts professionals out there that have experience with both current 2002 Kia and D/C mini vans? Thanks for getting thru this long post!
  • tccmn1tccmn1 Posts: 278
    I have had Dodge and Plym. mini's for 12 years now. Bought both brand new. First one was a GRAND Plym.Voy in '90. Current van is a '95 Shorty SE Sport with Tow and 3.3 engine.
    Currently shopping and dealing on an MPV for looks, features ,and yes, the smaller size. I like the new DC's but wanted a short version that could tow. Unfortunately Dodge decided that is not the way to go and you shouldn't either, so you can't ORDER one that way. Now you gotta go with the GRAND to get a tow package. Not for me. Going with the MPV 4-season tow up to 3000lbs...and it's a nice short size for me! Test drove Sienna, DC's, HL's, and like the handling of the 'smaller' MPV..zoom-zoom.
    Wake up Dodge and see that not everyone wants a lumber wagon to tow a boat!!
  • The Sedona is probably the best for towing and i tried both and prefer the handling of the Sedona
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    After reading about two more rear (third) seat fatalities (children) last weekend in Va. Beach IMO you are better off getting a large sedan with Latch system than a minivan. The van in Va. Beach was read-ended by an SUV at a busy intersection. Other passengers in the van survived.
  • We've had a 2000 Chevy Venture for almost 2 1/2 years now, and have yet to have a single problem with it...has been a real jewel...read my post on the Venture message board Dec. 09, 2002. As for rattling...We've taken adventures through every type of weather and road conditions you could ever imagine, and she handles perfectly quietly...Just can't say enough good things about old Blue!
    This may not be the typical, but we have truely been Blessed with our Venture! Changing Oil and Filter every 3,000 miles, as well as air filter regularly might have something to do with it, but I thought that was the norm for anyone who would want their vehicle to last for a long, long time!
    Treat your vehicle as you would want to be treated..... like family!
  • honushonus Posts: 17
    Texasventure--

    I am happy to hear that your Venture has been a reliable vehicle thus far. I considered the Chevy over the Pontiac and Oldsmobile given its price, but in the end, opted for the Mazda MPV for the tumble-down third row seat (and 200HP/5-speed automatic). GM reliability was a secondary factor.

    It was tough to pass up using my GMS discount and $3,000 GM credit card rebate earnings, thus I decided to purchase a Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix)for reasons of the Japanese engine. With every conceivable GM discount, total cost on the Vibe was $10,550.

    I wish you continued happiness with your Venture!
  • artgpoartgpo Posts: 483
    I bought a 2003 Oldsmobile Silhouette in mid October. So far, and through 3,200 miles, the van has been fine. It is both comfortable and luxurious. The price was outstanding as was the free financing. This is our sixth minivan since 1983. During the purchase consideration we drove the Town and Country, Windstar, Montana and Honda minis. Most were very similar. The Olds was the best value. Only time will tell the reliability.
    By the way, of the previous five minivans, only a '90 Pontiac and '97 Windstar were reliable. Those from Nissan, VW and a Grand Caravan were lemons.
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    If 60% of the minivans you bought were unreliable why did you choose another: masochism??
  • People - look at the Kia Sedona. Check the posting on this vehicle. For the price and the amenities - this is the van of the future.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    Nice van but I wish they'd improve the mileage.

    Steve, Host
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Real-world mileage figures for Sedona seem to be well above the 15 city / 20 highway MPG ratings from the EPA. Granted, the Odyssey probably outdoes Sedona in fuel economy, and I'm sure some other vans do too, but the difference is not as great as the EPA numbers suggest.

    We get 22-23mpg highway at 75mph. With a nearly 50/50 city/highway mix, our Sedona is around 19.5mpg after 13,000 miles. The figure is a bit higher with the first 2,000 or so miles excluded (poorer mileage during break-in).
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    hmmm, I didn't think anyone was getting real world mpg that high. You're only about 2 mpg behind me and my van is well broken in. That's good to hear.

    Steve, Host
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Our Sedona runs fine on 87 octane - at least so far.
  • The van has 2500 miles on it. I consistently get 17-18 MPG city.

    No highway numbers yet.
  • The real question is where will you get parts after South Korea becomes a nuclear waste field as the North invades due to starvation and we counter with tactical nukes.

    Yes, I would say, Korean auto parts? Let's look at the 3-5 year out picture.

    Mark.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    Hmmm. I didn't consider that scenario in my buying process. Somehow I don't feel stupid for not doing so.
  • Hello group,

    I'm looking for help in minivan shopping. My wife and I have just found out that our second child is going to be twins, vaulting us to a family of 5 and out of our Honda Accord (other car is a Nissan Maxima). Our daughter will be two and a half when the twins arrive, so we'll have one booster seat and two rear-facing car seats; three car seats of some sort for the next few years.

    We think a station wagon is going to be too tight (willing to hear your comments on this point), so thinking minivan. Our criteria are 1) safety (I saw the post about third seat fatalities but haven't heard much else on this point), 2) comfort/convenience loading and unloading the kids, 3) Price, 4) Performance (mileage, low emissions, handling in rain/snow/ice). Usage will be primarily local driving but we expect to do the occasional holiday weekend roadtrip (DC to BOS).

    There's a used 1997 Dodge Caravan ES with 73,000 miles (75,000 extended warranty) in good condition available in our neighborhood for $6,500. We like the styling and the size seems right. I like the flexibility of the movable car seats. I envision removing one of the pilot seats to ease getting to the back row.

    Would appreciate any input you have on the subject -- especially about managing mulitple car seats and the safety issues.

    Thanks,
    David
  • David -- about the used Dodge -- I own one (a 97 no less) and that's about when a lot of issues seem to hit at least for me. If you don't mind a few k in repairs then perhaps it will work. The styling isn't bad and it is a good vehicle other than having a bad rep for being unreliable at high miles. YMMV.

    I own two minivans -- a 97 Dodge Caravan and a 2002 Kia Sedona. Is one better than the other? The Dodge was cheap but I have over 2500 in unscheduled repairs in it easy at 80,000 miles -- all between 70,000 and 80,000 miles. The KIA has about 14,000 miles on it and it is a good car so far -- much more power than the Dodge.

    The Honda we don't own -- it looks nice but overpriced currently. It's a Honda, not a Mercedes.

    I tend toward a cheap Dodge/Chrysler (i.e.: if they don't give you 5k off list to start with walk -- that is the minimum discount you should get new and that is what you should expect to base your used price off of as well -- and Dodge/Chrysler apparently does not know how to make a reliable high milege vehicle (my opinion based on my experience)). The Kia is good and inexpensive but won't get as good a milege but will cost you less in maintenance it seems.

    Mazda is definately another consideration as is the Mercury which is dirt cheap new right now!!!!

    I've always either bought new or really, really old -- never been brave enough for the middle ground. As I said the Dodge looks good and the price isn't bad but the reliability issue is there. You will find that many 6 year old Chrysler/Dodge minivans are out there and they are cheap -- if you don't finance then used could work just set aside 3k for fixes and hope it's not the transmission which can cost you big bucks.

    If you finance consider newer and/or new and remember to drive the discounts especially on the domestic cars.
  • rylesryles Posts: 19
    My wife and I also had our second child magically turn into twins, immediatley vaulting us into the 5 person family. We went with the Pontiac Montana, as it and it's twin (Chevy Venture) are the only vans to offer 3 across seating in the second row. A big plus for reserving storage space in the back. We can fit 3 car seats in the second row, and fold up or remove the 3rd row. I figure this arrangement is good for at least the next 5 years.

    Ryles
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    Since safety is your #1 criteria, please also consider the Ford Windstar. It had the best overall crash test scores for any minivan until the 1999, when it was surpassed by Sienna and Odyssey (For some reason the IIHS recently downgraded the 1999+ Windstar to "Acceptable" from "Good" in the offset crash test). Windstar also has the nicest array of carseat tether anchors standard since 1995. Ford also added LATCH for 2000, a year earlier than other models. 1995-1998 Windstars are usually pretty good values. Do avoid the 1995 Windstar with the 3.8L V8, though.


    Also see:


    http://www.car-safety.org/minivan.html

  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    If you have any safety questions, caviller will be sure to answer them! He (she?) is one of the most helpful and reasonable of all the Town Hall participants.

    There are several minivans that score pretty well in the various crash tests, but there are also several that do quite poorly. In the 'poorly' category, the GM cousins (Olds Silhouette/Chevy Venture/Pontiac Montana) stand out. Odyssey, MPV, Sienna, Windstar, and Sedona all fit into the 'pretty good' crash test rating category.

    However, there are differences in which type of crashes each van handles well or not so well. One can almost go crazy worrying about this. My bottom line: safety is important to me too, but there is no perfectly safe vehicle. I'd avoid the ones that are really rated poorly and consider all others.

    I don't recall where the DCX vans fall in safety-wise, but the info is readily available online.

    We are a family of 3 with a likely max of 4 or 5. We bought a Kia Sedona in February and really enjoy it. We do lots of weekend trips but nothing further than 150 miles each way so far. For a family of 5, you probably don't need one of the bigger minivans-- for me, this 'bigger' group includes Windstar, Odyssey, the extended-wheelbase GM cousins, and the Grand Caravan/Voyager. You'll probably have plenty of room in an MPV, Sienna, Sedona, Villager/Quest, short version of the GM cousins, or non-Grand Caravan/Voyager.

    If you are shopping new, the Sedona offers a very attractive price. Actual price tops out around $22k for the loaded top-level EX model. You can probably do quite well on Villager/Quest too. MPV is a little pricier but generally costs less than the larger minivans.

    Our Sedona EX is rated only 15 mpg city and 20 highway, but we are seeing 19.5 mpg overall with a roughly 50/50 city/highway split so far. About 17 in straight city driving and 22-23 in 75mph highway driving. We really are enjoying our Sedona so far. Its quality is far above that of typical Kias in the past several years.

    If you're considering used, the price issue becomes more confusing because you can always go older or higher-mileage to get a model that costs more new.

    One other thing to consider is that some SUVs accommodate 3 child seats in their 2nd row seat. I haven't tried it, but someone on the Isuzu Trooper forum says his newer Trooper handles 3 standard car seats. Ours has 2 in it now (our niece came over to visit our daughter today) and it looks like a third would probably fit.
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    03 Impala has room for 3 car seats in the back seat with Latch system. Safer than using the 3rd row in any minivan IMO and the front passenger can monitor children more easily in the back seat of a sedan than in the 3rd row of minivan. Car was over $7K cheaper than DC EL van and more drivable IMO. For a family of more than 5 I would go with the Suburban. Just my opinion.
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002/03/01/third-row.htm


    new use for minivan/min-SUV third row seat:


    TV couch for rec room

  • Results of this particular crash test give the GM vans poor ratings in the laboratory, yet in the realworld insurance loss stats for injury, collision and theft, the Olds and the Montana are rated best in injury.

    See http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl_wagon.htm
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    I believe you will find that these stats are constructed based on frequency of injury, not severity of the crash. For example, if a passenger is killed there are no medical payments by the insurer. Something to consider IMO.
  • I think from reading at IIHS, are based on "losses," i.e., dollar payouts by the insurance companies. I imagine losses includes injury, death, medical bills, pain, suffering, lost wages, etc. which I suppose tend to increase with the severity of the crash.
    Re fatalities: I can't find any deathrates past 1997 or so, which excludes many newer vans. At any rate, IIHS says, "Fatal crash injuries are relatively rare, so they have little influence on insurance losses for injuries. Such losses are dominated by the far more frequent low to moderate severity collisions and their associated injuries."
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    Exactly my point. If a child gets killed riding in the third row seat it doesn't cost the auto insurer any more than if the child hadn't been there.
  • Does this mean if I'm at fault & someone is killed in the other car, my insurance doesn't pay their survivors anything?
    From consumer info sites:
    "Bodily Injury Liability
    The medical costs of injury that you cause to other people, loss of income for someone you injure and the cost of your legal defense if you are sued and determined to be at fault in the event of an accident involving injury or death."
    and:
    "Bodily Injury Liability
    Pays when an insured person is legally liable for bodily injury or death caused by your vehicle or your operation of most non-owned vehicles."
    What I understand is that the GM minivans' good rating in the IIHS injury category includes any & every type of loss, including any injury or death attributable to frontal-offest crashes. Meaning that in spite of the poor rating in the frontal-offset labtest that overall in the real world the GM vans are above average in minivan safety. Although since as a group, minivans are very safe, I think this is mostly hairsplitting.
    Put another way, the statistics show that the individual labtest doesn't say much about your likely overall safety, just what is likely to happen in that particular type of crash.
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    Regarding minivan 3rd row seating:

    There is some concern about 3rd row seats that are too close to the rear hatch. Loaded with heavy adults, the seat back can fail and may lead to injury. Fortunately, severe crashes from the rear are uncommon, about 4-7% of all crashes. Having and using 3-point lap/shoulder belts and properly adjusted head restraints will also minimize any risk. Finally, kids in a harnessed carseat are at the least risk in a third row seat. Their low weight is unlikely to load the seat back to failure, the 5-point harness greatly reduces the chance of ejection and the shell of the carseat also offers some protection from intrusion.

    I have no problem putting my kids in the third row seat of our minivan in a harnessed carseat. In fact, the middle of the third row is quite possibly safer than the outboard spot in the second row of a minivan or sedan. That is because side impacts are more common and more severe than rear impacts, and there is even less crush space.

    I would have a problem putting myself into the 3rd row of a vehicle with no shoulder belt or head restraint, especially if other adults were in that seat also. The increased weight and lack of appropriate restraints increase the risk significantly, and even more in a smaller minivan or SUV with less than a foot from the 3rd row seat ot the rear hatch.

    The back seat of a well designed sedan is likely to be somewhat safer in a crash from the rear than a minivan or SUV 3rd row. On the other hand, you trade off the extra 1000+ pounds for more common and more severe frontal crashes. In frontal crashes, minivans have the advantage of significant extra weight. As they are based on car platforms, they also retain the crushability of a unibody chassis and the better rollover characteristics of a car, too...

    Second, on injury and death data-

    These do have a small component of real world crashworthiness in them. Unfortunately, they also have a large component of driver profile. Notice that structurally identical twins (Villager/Quest, GM Trio, GC/T&C, etc) do not have the exact same loss ratings, and are sometimes quite different. In addition, most car-based minivans are in the best categories of injury and death rates compared to other vehicles. In my opinion, the numerical difference between two vehicles that are both "Substantially Better Than Average" in loss rates is not nearly as impressive as the difference between "2-stars" and "5-stars" in an NHTSA crash or rollover rating, or a "Good" vs. Marginal" in the IIHS offset test.

    Offset crashes are not uncommon. If your vehicle is in one, it's very likely to perform similarly to the crash test. Yes, the angles and momentums can vary in the real world. Even so, these standard tests are precisely controlled and the parameters are well known. If a manufacturer can't even design for an Acceptable result in such a test, I would not trust them to have designed the vehicle to do any better in crashes that vary slightly...

    If you buy a vehicle based only on the death or injury rates, you have mostly just put yourself in the same risk category as other drivers of the same vehicle. Maybe you're less likely to be involved in a crash with "loss" in the first place, but when you are in one you better hope your vehicle performs well in the standard crash tests, too....
  • artgpoartgpo Posts: 483
    Another place where the GM triplets scored high was on the property damage claim amount. The Silhouette scored the lowest claims for both injury or property of any large vehicle. You can go to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's own web site and check out the numbers for yourself.

    The crash test results were interesting in that no test has been conducted since 1997.
  • rylesryles Posts: 19
    If you have the Pontiac or Chevy, you don't even NEED to put one of the 3 children in the third row. They'll fit in the second row, leaving LOTS of room behind the second row for storage, impact absorption, etc. We've been very happy with this solution, and I would doubt that an Impala would have gotten our new refrigerator home as did our Montana.
  • cavillercaviller Posts: 331
    "The crash test results were interesting in that no test has been conducted since 1997."

    If no changes have been made to the chassis or restraint system, the IIHS will generally not retest a vehicle. The NHTSA will often carry test results over to the next year or even two if no redesign has been made to the vehicle.

    Expect the next IIHS test for the GM Trio to be when GM refreshes the vans or updates them with an all-new model.

    If you know there have been significant changes to a vehicle and it has not been retested, it is a good idea to write the IIHS. They have generally been pretty responsive to my inquiries. I am currently awaiting a response as to why the 1999+ Windstar was downgraded from "Good" to "Acceptable" overall in the offset crash rating....
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    You got me on the fridge, but I don't think I would spend $7K more to buy a van to haul a fridge every 20 yrs!
  • *While the number of stars has remained constant, the actual force mesurments have changed over the years for the GM triplets at the NHTSA site. So even though there have been no design changes, it seams the NHTSA has continued to test and get slightly different results, which I think questions the actual duplicatability of the results.

    *While it is unclear if "deaths" are in the "injury" ratings for the HLDI lists, they do say that "Collisions that result in serious and fatal occupant injuries are relatively rare, so they have only a small influence on the insurance injury results reported in this publication."

    *Another good example of the paradox between the IIHS and HLDI is the Toyota Tundra. Toyota ads claim it to be the best scorer from the IIHS, but the HLDI (which is funded by the IIHS) has it near the bottom for injury.

    *One thing that always comes to my mind when I see the tests (IIHS), is that should I ever be in that situation, I would think I would 1) get off the gas, 2) step on the brakes, or 3) steer to move the car. I would think it possible the other driver would do simular things. All of which the test dosen't take in to effect. This could result in the differences betweeen lab and outside. Which could mean that a vehicle designned for the crash test may not perform as well on the road.

    *And keep in mind all these tests concern mostly the driver. At 6'4" and 310 lbs, I believe the current crash dummies do not reflect what might happen to me.

    *So my feelings have been, choose the vehicle that best meets your needs and has features you desire, if if two are close then think about reputation and safety.
Sign In or Register to comment.