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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Mark
RE : Crash tests. While the tests don't shine, they just aren't that bad and they are only one factor when buying a car/truck. ABS, traction control and AWD will help keep you out of an accident and that is just as important.
I was struck by the Montana offset photos. My question is: does the collapse of the driver's leg space result from too stiff an engine bay or one that allows too much compression? I am not an engineer... although I play one on t.v. It seems to me the vehicle suffered from an engine bay that was too stiff. If the engine bay took the brunt of the collision and collapsed, it might allow the passenger compartment - built stiffer? - to remain intact. The driver's seat appeared to launch forward, the dashboard backward. Can they modify the frame on a vehicle like Montana/Aztec(?) in such a way that structural integrity of the passenger compartment remains intact.
Sad to see these poor results. It will make it even more difficult for the general to do something with this line. How many years remaining before the entire line is revamped?
Where is Kissfan when you need him? I suspect he will not be a happy camper.
Good job jmatero...
I won't even go into the crash ratings, but from this auto enthusiast...." big surprise" wink, wink.
Stephen
Because everyone on this forum is so consumed with safety, I have no doubt they will echo my comments, for they too have taken these courses to better protect their families when driving. I mean, what well designed car can cut accidents by 30%. Right Topgn. Later EIEIEIO
PS. They teach you to avoid cars running red lights by stopping well before the intersection, at least 10 feet, and count 2-4 seconds before entering the intersection after the light has turned green.
Just here to help the voters in Florida. They need it....
You better believe crash tests count, especially the IIHS ones. The NHSTA side impacts are good for all the idiots out there that might T-bone your vehicle.
You folks can sit here and rationalize all you want that this or that test, safety feature, or something else doesn't count... remember, all it takes is a split-second and the "other guy" to turn your whole world upside down. I don't gamble with my family's lives and buy as much safety as I can afford. You can make more money or buy another piece of sheet metal to drive around in, you can't replace your family.
Just my 2-cents, your milage may vary.
FYI, The 2001 Aztek Rally is on for 28 & 29 July, 2001. Anyone interested, e-mail Aztek@nni.com.
Sorry I won't be hanging around to read any of your insults.
Joe
Dindak, it seems to me you're already rationalizing the result. Built-in safety cannot be replaced.
168 day supply of AZZZteks...whew, that is enough to replace all the Ladas in Russia. Pontiac announced a new rebate plan today $1000 plus camping package for the AZZZZtek, and 500 more for repeat owners. Odd thing is, sunfire and montana have a 1500 rebate. What are they going to do with all these '91s when the revised minivan comes out?
Lookout car rental agencies....here they come. They are trying to flog them to Air Canada frequent flyers at National (or some other major chain) for $54 per day. Once again, way overpriced.
The following is an alphabetical list of vehicles currently sold in North America (and already tested by both NHTSA and IIHS) which achieve that pinnacle of safety (5 stars across the board and a "good" IIHS rating):
2001 Volvo S80 4 Dr
The point that seems to be missing in this debate is that these ratings are relative indicators of how these vehicles and their passengers might do under real-world crash circumstances. These are labratory tests - consumers should be aware of them and, if they're considering two vehicles in the same class, these results should also be considered.
Since the Aztek is classified as an SUV, it's crash rating is relative to other SUV's - in other words, you can interpret its results as how likely you would be seriously injured in a frontal or side collision with another vehicle that the NHTSA interprets as an SUV.
The Aztek's rating does not say that your passengers are not protected if a Honda civic t-bones you - neither does the Volvo's rating say that you are protected in the event of a t-boning by an Expedition.
Let's keep this discussion in the realm of reality.
theiceman
P.S. BMW is the pantheon of automotive safety? Show me a BMW passenger car tested by the NHTSA and IIHS that stacks up to my Bonneville's 5-5-4-4 star rating and IIHS's "best pick" rating and I'll concede the point.
1. Large Luxury Cars: 5 series >top Pic #1
2. Midsize Luxury Cars: Volvo s-80 #1
BMW 3 series #2
3 S.U.V. ( by the way this is a SUV forum, have you noticed) BMW X/5 "outstanding performance"
Cited as the BEST VEHICLE EVER TESTED BY THE IIHS...enough said..
Oh again the Montana Minivan placed DEAD last
The Aztek is basically a Montana MINIVAN..
The above information is on page 11 in the Consumer Reports 2001 SUV edition, at your newstands now..!!
Tonychyrs>>> "buy as much safety as you can afford" I could not have said it better..!!
How can you place a $$$ figure on your kids>>>>>>>YOU CANNOT.
Also for those that think it's "driving skills"
did we just have a accident by someguy named " Earnhart"....There is always the X factor...
In conclustion>> The Aztek has at the very least
HUGE safety issues...
The only Car I know of that is being redesigned in it's second year of production (going back for me 20 years)..
Resale, it already seems to be a TRADE-IN value of 50% of it's retail value 6 months after being in the market
Point is, as I've said before opinions are like ********, everybody has one!
I've seen 4 sled tests of the Aztek and Rendevous, don't have the data, but I must admit that the dummies didn't sustain major injuries, nor did they "die". I HAVE seen sled tests of prototypes, (NOT U body based), which have "killed" dummies and forced us to redesign, postpone, or even cancel production of vehicles. You can rest assure that NO manufacturer of vehicles that I am aware of would willingly expose themselves to litigation resulting from inadequate safety protection for occupants! Even the accountants understand the effect on the bottom line.
I would hate to see people make a decision based on a single test and it's statistics, EVERY collision is unique! I also understand that such information is limited by it's very nature, but please don't believe that we would manufacture a vehicle that is not engineered to protect occupants in any collision. Remember, there is always the one factor that cannot be allowed for, "the loose nut at the wheel".
Regards,
MAK
gmdrone : Most people don't base their entire decision on one test. That being said, it doesn't help that Aztek is not as good as it could be.
Check out more info here.
I found humor in the article's statement that "
In addition to the cash incentives, Pontiac will offer discounted options; for example, a $195
camping package for the slow-selling Aztek sport utility vehicle will be offered for free." That definitely qualifies as a "discounted option"!
Happy to say we will be making an offer on a new Aztek over the weekend.
gmdrone, as always, thanks for your input!
Kissfan????
I'm sure Kapsfan will call everyone liars soon enough.
However we will benefit from many stories about how "Jethro" at the rest area said "What in the hell is that thing?" Which be seen as proof of how popular the Aztek is with everyone EXCEPT people who purchase vehicles.
Any changes to the structure would involve substantial tooling and die changes, requiring a fair amount of capital and lead time. One of the General's big things right know is commonization, not proliferation, so I doubt that any major changes are in the works.
Speaking of real world input, co-worker was smashed by a semi at lunch on Mound Rd., right outside the office, sort of an offset frontal impact, (aprox 55-60 degrees off centerline) in brand new AWD bright yellow Aztek. Vehicle looks pretty bad, all airbags deployed, but she walked away from scene. She seemed to think that the vehicle protected her, so todd54 I wouldn't get all worked up about it, just yet. She went over to the PEP lot looking for another Aztek. I'll try to get photos tomorrow that I can post.
Regards,
MAK
GM Drone- I'm glad your friend walked away from her accident.
Also, there's one less Aztek on the road!
Kissfan my Aztek just increased gas mileage to 21.9 mpg (city). Have a great roadtrip!
Where is the Aztek rally in July gonna be??
Todd
Zircon, short answer, I don't know. This is just a guess based on the NHTSA test results. The Montana had high leg loads but low chest and head loads and the Aztek just the reverse. My big assumption here is that leg damage primarily results from deformation of the engine compartment and cabin. If anybody knows otherwise please correct me. It seems logical to me that the high head and chest numbers (Lower is better/safer) might result from the car snapping abruptly to a stop on impact with the barrier and transferring more of the crash energy into the test dummy. It follows that one possible reason this might occur is that the engine compartment AND passenger cabin (Should have said that before) are structurally stronger and/or stiffer. If that is the case then it seems possible to me that the Aztek might perform more credibly on the IIHS test. Anyway, that's my half-baked theory of the week, go easy on me if it proves completely wrong.
GMDrone, do you know how NHTSA massages it's raw test result numbers to come up with the star ratings? Based on the numbers they supply it appears the driver in the front crash test was a borderline 5/4 star rating. I don't how or if the figures are weighted, or if other unpublished factors are used to calculate the results.
Barresa11, any idea how old that article is? I couldn't find a date for it but the latest sales figures it mentioned were for October and it talks about "when the AWD model comes out" which happened a month or more ago. Otherwise it seems to be saying what everyone here has already agreed on, Aztek sales are very slow and well below GM's projections.
Now that we're all twitterpated about the so-called safety issue, does anybody know when the IIHS results are due? Likewise with the NHTSA rollover results? Also, after 8 months and 17K+ Azteks sold does anybody know if it is more or less crash-"prone" than other vehicles in its class? Is there a site anywhere that keeps track of real-world crash statistics?
Todd
Todd
Stephen
Not that many will believe this, one of the most recurring things that I hear from strangers is "I didn't like it at first but I've changed my mind". Those who have ridden in / driven mine unamiously have said that they would consider ownership.
I do not understand what sort of pleasure the non-owners get by posting here over and over and over again. I don't care if you won't change. Why do you care about me? This forum has gone so far away from the Aztek itself it's just one giant game of "Neener neener neener, I told you so". But this is the internet., free speech and all that. So go for it with your stale jokes. I do wish the "platform" garbage would go away. It's been misused too many times already. If any of you really knew what went into building a vehicle and how it's validated you wouldn't use platform as a reference for test results. Old saying goes here: If it ain't repeatable, it ain't a valid test.
Too busy with work to post lately......But I have to laugh how the safety numbers are being interpreted.
No time to debate right now.....Wrapping things up at work.
Getting ready for great drive to Florida in great car........
Bye.....Friends and Foes!!
The word for today is schadenfreude. (assuming less than stellar crash test scores is unfortunate).
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
At least that's what the girl at Krispy Kreme told me.
They seem to love being the subject of it too, apparantly.
Have you seen the new Mondeo? that car rocks! someone in my neighborhood has one. All the major British car pubs rank it ABOVE the Passat!
Wow.
Hope all is well KissFan. Your posts are sorely missed.
Thanks for the input Todd54. Any engineers out there competent to talk about engine bay and passenger compartment design to allow for maximal energy dissipation? BMW and MB sure seem to be expert at this one aspect of car design. What do they know that the Nord Americanos do not?
Also, science is based on replication. All of the examples I have seen performed by the insurance industry or gov't appear to involve single cars (i.e. unreplicated designs). Did they initially crash 10 vehicles and determine that their methodologies are robust enough to only go with a single replicate (to save $)? I am surprised that pissed-off automakers haven't challenged these tests yet.
Adios amigos....off the the Atacama for some R&R.
Contrary to Aztek-bashing posts which have pounced on its lacklustre NHTSA crash test results, a vehicle with this rating is not a deathtrap. To read some of the fear mongering, our roads are deathzones hurtling giant killer SUV's at every corner, for which the only responsible reaction is to buy a vehicle that does well in a laboratory crash test. Some of these posts go so far as to ridicule the Aztek based solely on its NHTSA rating while simultaneously advocating considerably more expensive vehicles which have never been tested by the NHTSA.
Crash test ratings are very important but only one part of the safety equation. While we all agree that we'd rather drive a vehicle with a 5-star rating than a 3, I would personally never categorically dismiss a vehicle with a rating of 3-4 5-3 such as the Aztek's based on a "buy all the safety you can afford" mentality. Even at $100,000+ I could still afford a Volvo WG Tractor (lowest traffic fatalities per mile traveled!) but, heck, it just wouldn't be the most convenient or economical way for me to get around - and think of the gas mileage! Oi! It's an extreme example but it makes the point: we all select vehicles that meets our own personal mix of needs (incl. affordability, reliability, decent safety features, creature comforts, handling, performance, etc.) and - hopefully - we'll all drive them defensively. I cannot agree that there is only one vehicle that everybody in every income group should buy.
As the IIHS doesn't test side impacts or rollovers (both responsible for a significant number of deaths and injuries in SUV's), we cannot truly gauge the safety of any SUV that has not been tested by only the IIHS. As the NHTSA doesn't test for offset crashes, we are left to wonder how safe we are buying a vehicle with a 5-star NHTSA rating. If you think "very" check out the Honda Civic's NHTSA 5-5 /5-5 rating against it's mere "acceptable" IIHS rating. If you think conversely that a 3-star NHTSA driver protection rating must result in poor IIHS results, compare the Toyota Avalon's 3-5 / 4-5 NHTSA rating (not too far off the Aztek's, you say?) against its "good" IIHS rating and "best pick in its class" designation. Finally consider that the Pathfinder's 4-5 star rating is better than the 4-Runner's 4-4 but the IIHS gives the latter a "good" designation and the former rates a "marginal" in the IIHS test.
Based on the differences between these two tests, would it therefore be irresponsible to buy any vehicle that has not been tested well by both of these organizations? (especially for those with children) Given that the NHTSA has not yet tested the BMW X.5 and will likely never do so, we may never be in a position to completely assess its safety. Is it likely to test well? Perhaps - but we'll likely never know. Are we suggesting that people with children never buy the Bimmer? Obviously not.
Despite the fact that the recent alarmist posts have come from committed Aztek-haters, I would be convinced of their altruistic motives if they would post these same arguments to the fora for all of the SUV's (including the Blazer/Jimmy/Bravada, Tahoe/Yukon, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Mitsubish Montero) with a crash test rating of three stars or less. If they similarly advocated that people avoid the BMW X.5 (or any BMW for that matter) until the NHTSA has concluded its crash tests, then I would conclude that there is certainly more altruism than irresponsible self-amusement in their posts.
theiceman
Resale>>> It seem's to be 50% at trade in value of it's retail price...NEVER IN 20 YEARS HAVE I SEEN A CAR DEPRECIATE 50% IN SIX MONTHS..
A makeover, CAN anyone else here think of a car that was redesigned in it's second year of production...EVER>>!!
LOOKS>>>Come on, at the very least polorizing, and 80% of the Media calls it "Butt Ugly"..
1.Safety
2.Resale
3.Makeover
4.Looks
IT's not just Safety, Is there another car or SUV, made by ANY manufacturer, that has the above problems....NAME ONE>>>>>!!!
Regards,
MAK
----
Anyone living in Ontario... in the paper today they have 2001 Aztek base for C$25200 with 1.9% financing for 60 months. Good deal!
I do not recall another vehicle that carries so many important traits.
Grossly objectionable style, poor marketing, overpricing fot it's intended demographic, recycled ancient mechanical parts for the nth time, a marginally safe package, and of course the overprice/rebate mentality which moves units at the expense of resale for your faithful customers who paid full price.
It is rare for one vehicle to have so many strikes against it.
It embodies everything wrong with GM in one contemptable package.
Wonder why GM has gone from 50% of the market to about 25%?
Is should anger people that one of our country's greatest industrial concerns is so inept.
So, Aztek the vehicle, I pity. Aztek the concept fascinates me.
It should be interesting to read what HIS interpretation actually is... mainly since he went out of his way to list other cars that got fewer than 5-star front side impact ratings and said he couldn't recommend them because "they are not as safe as the Aztec". Now, we learn the Aztec gets only a 3-STAR rating for Driver frontal impact, and he suggests we're all misinterpreting the results. I take it, then, that we can all look forward to reading the following comment from him in the near future: "Based on the fact that the Passat got 5-stars but the Aztec only got 3-stars, I can't recommend the Aztec as it is not as safe as the Passat".
I doubt we'll read this anytime soon.
I can't WAIT to read HIS interpretation of the 3-Star results. For quite a while now he has been lecturing all of us on how we shouldn't consider the Montana's test results because (and rightfully so) they are not the same vehicles. He also said he "couldn't wait" for the test results to make a final judgement as to the Aztec's safety and that he felt it would out-perform the Montana. He also felt the NHTSA tests were "more complete" than the IIHS. Well, here we are.... the results are in... 3-Stars. The competition all get higher safety ratings. Even the little CR-V got 5-stars (as did my Passat... wink-wink.....).
Again, I'm NOT trying to be some kind of thorn in his side, but he has pulled out all-the-stops defending this vehicle... in every way imaginable... but with the exception of front SIDE impact results (which were quite good)... the rear-side and driver's frontal results are bad.
My thinking is this... if a Mazda Protege, a VW Golf, a Honda Civic and a FORD FOCUS HATCHBACK can all get 5-Star frontal crash ratings (the Ford being a $13,000 car...) there is NO REASON a minivan like the Aztek should be getting only 3-stars. Hell, even the little tiny electric Honda Insight got 4-STARS and it's made out of aluminum.
Anyone care to predict what the Buick version will get?
However they would rather recycle ancient platforms again and again squeezing every penny out of the tooling. Don't you see the contempt they have for their buyers? You'd think the loss of 50% of their market share would wake them up. Nope- we'll just keep pumping out 1981-based Cavaliers with 3500 rebates.
Rather than make good vehicles, they hire "brand-managers" to market them like soap or cigarettes.
You don't see Honda or Toyota playing those games. They just make cars that people, not rental companies, want.
It would be great, for all of us, if they'd wake-up.
I hope the Aztek helps them realize how out of touch they are.
Drone?
Further, there is more to the market share drop than just cars. FACT is the are more than twice as many car companies operating in the U.S. now vs. when they had 50% market share. FACT is they made record profits last year. FACT is their current market share is 28% of a much bigger market.
Aztek is a flop so far, that is clear. Repeating that over and over is not interesting to anyone. Rendezvous is likely to do MUCH better and should be a big seller for GM.
After having said this inciteful comment, I will agree w/you that GM does produce a few good cars, unfortunately they are based on some old hardware that is beginning to show it's age. The old adage "If it isn't broken, why fix it?" doesn't fly these days as consumers demands become more technical in nature and govt standards more stringent. GM's track record w/new platforms has not been good and doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the product.
Stephen
What is it that you said that was "inciteful"?? PLEASE!
Just because a car isn't "cutting edge", doesn't mean it's bad or not competitive. There is no one company that could ever hold anything close to 50% market share ever again.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=3407
Mark
The above statement is invalid. NHTSA states "NCAP test results are only useful for comparing cars of similar weight (within 500 pounds of each other)" and IIHS states "Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight". Here are the relevant weights:
Protege - 2494lbs
Golf - 2934
Civic - 2502
Focus - 2646
Insight - 1868
Aztek FWD - 3763
Aztek AWD - 4054
You also mention the Passat, 3168lbs, closer but still not close enough for valid comparison. I'm sure you could make your point better if you chose cars closer in weight to the Aztek. Even the CR-V is more than 600lbs lighter and so not comparable.
Also, for anyone interested, when reading the NHTSA's rating information page I noticed the following sentence I had missed before: "Head and chest injury data are combined into a single rating and reflected by the number of stars." I'm not sure how the numbers are combined. Based on NHTSA graphs chance of head injury for the Aztek was about 7% and chest injury about 17%. I don't know if they just add the numbers or if they use some other formula.
GMdrone, how is your coworker? Were you able to photograph the Wrecked Aztek?
Todd