Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I have always felt that European cars protect their occupants in real world crashes, especially Mercedes and BMW.
Because aesthetics are so subjective it is all the more reason to talk about it. Furthermore, I believe you did an excellent job of it in your post.
Of course the stats say otherwise. The 3 series is downright lousy - 3 stars out of 5 - in side impact crashes (nhtsa.com).
The idea the euro cars are safer in crashes a myth fabricated by the PR departments of MB, Volvo, Audi, et al. They do their damnedest to convince us their "vault-like" cars are so safe vis-a-vis the japanese and american comeptition. Total rubbish.
Who is correct? I don't really know. That said; it takes some moxie to deliberately engineer a car that does not do well in the NHTSA tests. As such, I'm inclined to think that my BMW is more than safe enough.
Best Regards,
Shipo
But I know several people who have been in accidents, had their BMWs totaled and walked away. (There are those of course who haven't have been so fortunate as people in the safest of cars according to the NHTSa are killed) Of course, you could say that about all cars, but I am sold, and I believe I have a better chance of survival in a 3 series than let's say an Altima or Maxima. Laboratory procedures don't tell what happens when a car going 65 is rear-ended by a bus.
Lets not go to inane anecdotes as my Grandfather would quickly step up and say he knew people who had been thrown from a car in an accident and walked away fine, thus he wouldn't wear a safety belt. Great so some people get by on dumb luck. If I have to choose between believing the NHTSA and BMW regarding crash worthiness, the NHTSA gets my vote every day and twice on Sunday. BMW has a reason to lie to us - they're here to sell us products and protect their fragile brand identity.
I'm not a big fan of gov't bureaus but when it comes to safety, I don't believe one word coming from any corporation...especially the automobile world.
For Saab, they built huge mechanic mooses for their own crash test. I just feel safe in a Saab. Volvo is famous for their safety too (even though I don't have much interest on their cars). My friend has a Jetta and her car was rear-ended by a Japanese sedan. There were only few scratches on the bumper of the Jetta but there were significant damages on the Japanese car.
I like to pay less for more horsepower and better reliability. But how good can it be if you cannot survive in an accident ? I am willing to pay more for Europeans (or maybe I am getting old..)
"Of course, the Japanese improved their cars a lot but most of their cars were not built for autobann driving (of course you can drive them to 100mph but you will not feel safe in those cars in that speed. I found they are not as "stable" as European cars on highway speed). European cars give me better feel from and better control on the roads too."
Have you driven a TL or G35. The japanese figured it out finally. A g35 at 120 is much like my soon to be sis in laws BMW 530 at 120 or so. VERY rigid and stable (of course a smooth highway is not stability check). I'd personally take a G35 with sports suspension - hell an Altima over the new 9-3 in an accident. The epsilon platform from GM doesn't strike me as being autobahn worthy any more than any accord. I'd gamble if you drove a G35 on the autobahn you'd walk away a believer.
A few years ago, my brother was involved in an accident where the his vehicle flipped twice and was totaled. Amazingly, the only injury he suffered was a slight bruise to his head. It was a Japanese car. He was damn lucky, I'd say.
Doesn't really mean that Japanese cars are inherently safer than German cars. Depends more on each vehicle. I'm inclined to trust NHTSA and IIHS more than what BMW or any other manufacturer says. Not that NHTSA and IIHS are infallible, but better than what a manufacturer or a few anecdotes say.
unfortuanately all the technology in crumple zones means it wont take much impact to make it look horrific and cost a lot to repair. I guess the insurance co would rather pay for a new car than for a new you as would you or I. The G has one of the worst slow speed accident costs for a 5 mph crash but that all seems forgiven when looking at offset frontal and real world accidents I've seen pics of. The shell around the G passenger seems to be quite well built and I like the extra head room away from the A and B pillars that you dont get with the smaller cars like a 3 or 9-3. Being 6'5" I am at much more risk of injury from my own interior caving around my head and knees than most...and the extra room doesn't suck either!
"I haven't heard anyone complain."
Eye roll. I shot back, "Of course not. They're dead."
Actually, I knew the car had great ratings but I just love the way salesguy lie and say silly stuff.
Excellent
1. IS300
2. C-class
3. A4
4. 9-5
5. 330i
6. ES330
7. X-type
8. CTS
Very Good
9. Crown Vic/Grand Marquis
10. Avalon
11. Town Car
12. Park Avenue
13. S60
14. I35
15. Bonneville
16. LeSabre
In this segment, no car scored below Very Good.
They only have an assessment for "models that have both IIHS offset-crash test results and either frontal- or side-crash results from NHTSA."
It is no secret that BMW just recently say like in the last 10-15 years really got serious about safety, but the rest have proven their worth in real-world crashes...especially Volvo and Mercedes. They've been collecting data on their wrecked cars in real world accidents in Europe for over 40 years and you're telling us that all of this reasearch puts them on or at the same level as companies like GM or Ford in safety. These two in particular don't even know where to put gas tanks in their cars or trucks. I'd really like to see your status if a C-Class or S40 gets hit by an SUV compared to a Focus or Cavalier or Civic.
These lab tests are silly in the fact that they are controlled and very predictable. Since when is a real world accident predictable and controlled? Companies like MB and Volvo were doing safety engineering before any of these US test organizations had a clue. Amazingly now the NHTSA wants makers to address rear-end impacts and the affects it has on seats, only about 20 years after Volvo and Mercedes solved the problem. These same safey regs give American cars that have headrests (important in a rear collision) that "rests" in the small of your back and don't come anywhere near protecting your actual "head" a "five star" safety rating. A Kia is now as safe as a Volvo? Ok right.
There are pictures all over the net of Mercedes and Volvos that have been completely demolished up to the A-Pillar and the glass didn't even break! I'd like to see anything from Japan or American do this. The current Acura RL bent up like an accordian in the last round of testing it was subjected to. The car literally "broke" after the A-Pillar, not before it.
M
Not sure where the video is - here are the results.... http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fratings/ce/html/0307.htm
There's your crumpled to the a-pillar with no windows broken shot on the right. This car is a best pick you'll notice as well. Volvo Schmolvo..they are all pretty good in this class...focus civics and cavaliers - why are those in here?
The U.S. simply doesn't have the driving environment to find out what happens in high-speed accidents on a regular basis, which is probably a good thing, given how most drive.
That, plus the litigious nature of American society means that giving a wrecked car back to the manufacturer for analysis isn't a highly likely event.
Today in 2004 a lot of work has been done to even the playing field, but the point is the Europeans especially Mercedes, were dealing with this issue more seriously than anyone else.
Visit an Imprezza forum. Those nutjobs wrap their cars around EVERYTHING and somehow that tinny-little econo car's passenger cage is fine over and over.
Sorry, I don't buy into the hype about european cars being safer than other cars and the most specific target of such claims: japanese cars.
I've been t-boned before while in a VW Golf (truck smacked us at 40 mph) and walked away fine- the energy of the crash was absorbed around the passenger cell. At the time I though, "Wow look how safe these German cars are" but after really looking into it I can't say the results would have been much different if we'd been in a civic or corolla. Probably different in a bimmer, as side protection is crap but other small cars seemed to fair fine in side collisions.
Buy into the marketing, that's fine. I don't for a second believe an MB or Volvo is head and shoulders safer than any other late model Japanese luxury brand.
I don't give a hoot what MB did safety wise in 1970, 80, 90. Doesn't matter to me. The cars made today by most luxury makes - BMW accepted - appear to have leveled the playing field to the point that declaring MB safer by virtue of its history just seems incredibly bias.
Matters to me and I don't buy into the marketing, just into what they did.
Please don't babble about how nobody would have done it then. Bah. There's nothing new under the sun simply variations. If Honda hadn't been first out with their VTEC somebody else would have come out with their version.
Bad attitude. Chuck Dickens would never approve. The Internet is new. And you don’t have to dig hard to find other things oh and yes
Do do, do do, d-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o I got a NEW ATTITUDE!!!
-Patti LaBelle
Aren't we all babbling? Some more than others
There was a vast difference in the German cars of the 70s/80s and the Japanese and American cars. German cars were built like tanks, Japanese cars were built like tuna-fish cans.
But we digress, and I agree this has nothing to do the comparo between a 3 series and a G35.
Just like yesterday lease rates dont mean squat, neither do yesteryears cars unless you drive them. An airbag alone makes any car better than anything out there in the 70's! How safe was a mercedes sl convertible when a 71 coupe de ville with out a crumple zone came head on into it. I guues no safer than me when a hummer h-1 comes 4 wheeling over my G...
Your video is of a controlled test. Means nothing on the highway at 65mph. If you visit Germancarfans.com you'll see Mercedes and other European cars like Volvo and Saab that have been crashed in anything but a controlled, white-coated engineers watching situations and their passenger cells are intact. My problem with these test is that some car markers are probably designing their cars to pass these test only, with real world concerns going out the window. Why are Civics in here? Someone is suggesting that all cars are just about equal when it comes to safety. Why should it matter if they cost a lot or if they're cheaper models? Aren't people who buy Cavaliers and Focuses entitled to safety too?
blueguydotcom,
My point about the Acura RL is that it failed a crash test and it supposed to be Acura's top car. Meaning that not all luxury car are created equal in terms of safety. I'm not shocked that you don't care about what Mercedes or Volvo did in the name of safety back in the day, long as you know that the car you're driving now benefited from what they did. Crumple Zone engineering didn't just fall from the sky. You're suggesting that all the research these companies did years before anyone else had clue puts them merely equal with companies that didn't even care about safety 10-15 years ago. Not even to suggest that MB or Volvo is safer because of what they did in the past. If you check into Insurance data in Europe on European cars you'll see where Volvo, Renault, Mercedes and others have proven they are safer than the majority of Japanese cars. It is well documented that Mercedes, Volvo and Porsche in particular addressed certain safety issues (like rear impacts) before Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford even began to research the problem. Now the government is going to set a standard, years and years after the hard work was done by you know who. But I'm to believe that Corolla is as safe a Volvo or Mercedes. Ok.
M
Haven't really seen any evidence that the 3, C, Saab, and Volvo are any safer than the TL, G35, ES, or IS. Or that the S and 7 are any safer than the LS or the Q. Or that the X5 and ML are safer than the RX, MDX, or FX.
First the cavialiers and civics and corolla that are much smaller than the mid size sedan volvos and mercs - these cars aren't even comparable. On thier own they have some great cars at that smaller class level where it's inherently more dangerous in certain types of impact.
Second if you think real world cars aren't better because something can't be gleaned from slamming half a car into a block wall at 45 in offset fashion then you might just assume that you will only be in other more friendly kinds of accidents. There are few more tragic impacts than head on offset frontal. You need to know what happens at 45 which is a major impact before a car can become a protective shell at 65. A merc c class more safer than a G or Maxima - horse puckey
Actually seeing what happens in a controlled setting while the car rips apart up to the passengers knees and head is probably the reason G's may be safer than the volvo mercedes and 3 series. I haven't seen any reason to believe I should buy into the pioneers marketing campaigns - all safety technology has been pertty reverse engineered if not shared and everyone uses everyone elses ideas...it's why there are so many great safe cars. Buy a chrysler if that emotion stirs your decision making it was Iaccoca that demanded airbags and did major groundbreaking in his labs for the technology to come to market.
The safest cars to be in are the accords and camarys based on real data. Can someone help me remember where I read this a month or so ago? ~ It may have been related to recent press about the rollover ratings, I'll post if I find it The article stated that a lithe sedan is way less dangerous than any suv for rolling over which is the more deadly variety of accident. Also the drivers that buy conservative sedans may be part of the correlation. If you really want to be safe a volvo will make you feel good before the accident thanks to the marketing but I'll not feel any safer since I know my car has more ability to avoid some accidents better than any car in class thanks to its handling edge and if impact does happen I should do as well it's compeitors.
I don't really believe this, but I absolutely agree that simulating an accident is not the same as being in one. If it were people wouldn't be killed at very low speed collisions, when *test* (notice it is test data) data suggest a driver in the very same car can walk away from a 40mph frontal collision.
For some European Manufacturers, like Volvo & Saab, they have been famous for safety (and they focus on safety a lot) for a long time. As I mentioned before, please knock on the doors on a Japanese car and then the doors on an European car (or maybe an American car too). You can tell the latter is more solid. The later usually has much more heavy doors too. Just think it simple, throw an egg and a stone (may not be that extreme but it is just an example) to the wall. Which one will have fewer damages ? I feel European cars are safety just based on my experience (I don't even want to mention the accident my mom had with her Corolla).
I think most Japanese mid-size cars are safe, but no as safe as European's. For Civic and Corolla (or Tercel/Echo), I doubt you can walk out with minor injury after a highway accident. They are famous for good milage and value. I got so many friends driving small Japanese cars in Canada and US and I don't think those small cars can protect you that well in highway accident (in city they may be ok). I have more faith on Nissan (better paint and seems to be more solid than Honda and Toyota).
I disagree with that statement. I've owned several Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans. By far the worse paint job honor belongs to Nissan in my book. Toyotas have the best.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Basically, I think they're both be very safe - and I feel very well protected in each of them. I do, however, place a lot of value in Volvo's history of safety research, testing, and pioneering new technologies/devices (WHIPS, SIPS, etc.) Today, as in the past, Volvo devotes a great deal of it's resources into safety research, and the result is they are typically among the first to introduce groundbreaking new safety features. Other car companies adopt this technology a couple years later and all cars on the road get safer and safer year after year.
I never bought into the Volvo marketing machine either...that is, until I test drove, and ultimately purchased a Volvo. And after my wife's horrible offset frontal crash last May, I'm a believer now.
Camrys and Accord being the safest cars is the horse puckey imo. There is no way either of these are as safe as a mid-size or large Volvo or Mercedes or even a Saab 9-5. Have you seen Saab's safety tests for the 9-5 in which they meet off-set at 75mph. Honda and Toyota wouldn't dare attempt this.
"You need to know what happens at 45 which is a major impact before a car can become a protective shell at 65."
My point exactly and why would they care about a 65 mph crash if they only have to pass the test at 45. Nissan is not a safety driven company like Volvo or Mercedes or Saab and with all the cheapining they've been doing do you really think they've thought any further about safety past government tests? I seriously doubt it. A crash at 45 mph is serious enough, but when you add another 20 mph to the game you're basically talking a whole new level of danger, with a corresponding level of engineering needed. Nissan in particular ain't been burning no midnight oil on this.
M
The Mercedes C class is an entry lux sedan. A civic is a compact car weiging less while being smaller and having less equipment smaller engine. Of course a C class will trample a civic IT WEIGHS AS MUCH AS A G OR MORE. Hello a hummer will crush a blazer. No one said all cars are equal. But I did say all cars in OUR CLASS are very equal. I'll take a corolla againt any similar sized car. What the H do you think this is a tank battle. It's not about who crushes who - too much monster truck shows there bud? When a s40 collides with a corrola both cars would probably fare equally frame wise. The volvo's true advantage is inside where the multiple side and pillar airbags are that corollas may not have. It may also be an advanced TCS and VDC system that corollas in the ECONOMY class donesn't have. If you think you can front on these two cars and the volvos going to look better or protect better (assuming theya re the same weight 0 they are not) becasue of miracle steel or welds that no one ever heard of then spend all the extra money. SOme people also belive GMC's are better than Chevy cause of better steel too and the division makes so much it was denied being shut down and folding back into chevy. Marketing
What's the big deal with 65 vs 45. Do you really know what's best for engineers designing cars. No. It's easy to make tests have 65 mph as national standard but most cars would be demolished - while our class would benefit the rest of the smaller 75 cars on the market would be scrap after an offset frontal at that speed. The problem with a national standard as thos tries to be is that it's crap for an array of car styles and sizes.
Nissan burning midnight oil..isnt that a band. Save your preaching - My G is rigid as they come, has 7 airbags all the electronic driver assists better handling and better accident avoidance than any volvo because of it's handling which is more important than seems to be apparent. Volvo Shmolvo
feedback on either car.
Nissan, Shmissan
Best Regards,
Shipo
;-)
These are the exact 2 cars I compared when I was looking for a new car. Safety was a primary concern for me along with reliability. I drove a Volvo S40 T5 exactly 2 days after the lot got its first 2004.5 S40. I like the looks of the S40 except for the Avalon type roof lines on the front and rear profile which really turns me off. It seemed to have plenty of pep for a 4 cylinder not too much turbo lag. However, I did not feel comfortable in the drivers seat. The placement of the console and the view from the drivers seat just didn't seem right for some reason. Also, the rear seat is quite uncomfortable for average passengers. I am only 6 ft tall and sitting in the back seat my head was touching the head liner and my legs were hard against the front seats.
That same day I test drove an Acura TL and my search was over. The TL felt more comfortable, solid, and faster. The interior quality was much higher IMO. The interior space on the TL is much larger that the S40. After adding all the options I wanted to the S40 I was at the same price as the TL w/o navigation which already had all those options. After 4000 miles on the TL I have absolutely no regrets.
I do not think for a second that the Volvo S40 is any safer to drive than the TL. They both ranked the same in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety frontal offset crash tests. The TL ranked in the top position for mid-sized luxury cars and the S40 was in the top position for mid-sized moderately priced cars. FYI, the Volvo S60 ranked last in the mid-sized luxury car category in this test. You can complain all you want about controlled crash testing but to this date it is the only benchmark we have.