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
A employee of my Dad, years ago, put green bulbs in the turning signal sockets and was ticketed.
Mark
They can be purchased for around $30 by calling American Identity at 1-800-793-9834.
The good news...
Everything that was right with the car is still right. A new interior fabric scheme is available. Plus the cooler is now standard with all models as is the CD player.
The bad news...
The spoiler IS retrofittable to the 2001. However, you will probably have to replace the entire liftglass to do it. It won't slip into place on the 2001 like we had hoped. In addition, the 2001 tents do not fit on the 2002 because of the width of the spoiler. So anyone who puts a spoiler on a 2001 won't be able to use their old tent.
To locate one in your area (there aren't many 2001s left) go to www.gmbuypower.com and plunk in your info and it will give you a list of dealers in your area with them.
The 'tek received a "Marginal" rating. So did 4 other SUVs (but only the tek has a 4 star rollover rating) but Dateline dwelled endlessly on the Tek although they let the Jeepster retest after bombing miserably.
It's a great test, but kind of unrealistic as not many car designers build cars to crash full-on into an offset brick wall.
Pass it On........
Still enjoying my Malibu but I'm ready for the next division up so I am moving to pontiac ( until Chevy makes a nice small SUV since that Tracker thing does not appeal to me ).
It is simply unrealistic to test for all possible encounters. Consider also that many collisions involve other vechicle so that, for example, you might want to perform tests on pairs of cars colliding. If you have 100 models to test and each is to be tested against all of the others, then you would have to "sacrifice" 4,950 vehicles instead of 100.
Now, as to those blue-haired biddies, let's be careful there! Some of our best friends are blue-haired! Besides, they usually pay lower insurance premiums than the kdis so we shouldn't cast stones! :-)
tidester
Host
SUVs
http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_031146
Also, are there any tweaks or such in the 2002 engine?
No engine tweaks for the 2002... but wait til 2003 when the Aztek Mark III hits the street...
Cars are like computers now, you buy the new model and it's obsolete.
All I keep hearing from the Development Team is "Wait 'til 2003" and "....maybe in 2003" with a smile and a wink.
My theory is that they are going back to the concept vehicle and will push to have the production model more closely mirror that.
In case you don't know what the concept looks like just go check out my site at: http://www.PictureTrail.com/gregeaston/
I'm new to the Pontiac forum so excuse my stupid question to follow...
You work for Pontiac then?
Nice!
Oh darn now I'm wondering if I should keep my Malibu until 2003. Oh cars...... Maybe I can extend my lease until September 2002. :-)
They also keep us owners updated on another site that shall remain nameless so that the board monitor doesn't nuke my post so that we get to participate in things like a few weekends ago when they had a few of us down to CT to film footage for the 2002 CD-ROM brochure that will be available from the Pontiac website in January.
ophiochus@yahoo.com
The Aztek is neither the best nor the worst vehicle in its weight class for crash safety. It is however the sole owner of the best rollover ratings for any SUV yet built. Also - crash tests into solid walls must be taken with a Major grain of salt, since the vast majority of real crashes are with other vehicles, where the Aztek's roughly two-ton mass can be a distinct advantage.
New readers/posters - Take a look at my Aztek safety page, at http://www.mwshowgo.com/kermit/safety.htm
malibu99 - congrats on your decision - you will not be disappointed. I saw a black AWD 2002 Aztek the other day and they are mighty fine!
1) The Insurance Institute does not ram cars into a solid brick wall. That's the NHTSA test. They crash cars into in an offset *deformable* barrier. It's the equivalent of rear-ending an SUV on the driver's side.
2) If you think that it's just "coincidence" that there's not a single GM SUV rated "Good" and that the three worst are made by GM.... think again. GM has LOUSY safety records. Their minivan, which should be a fortress of safety, completely collapsed in the test and got worst overall. I invite you to stroll over to www.iihs.org and check out both crash tests done on GM vehicles in general and the injury claim data. Ugly.
3) These cars only hit the wall at 40 mph. That's way below highway speeds.
4) Probably the most inaccurate assessment of a car's tendency to roll over is in NHTSA's RRR tests. They're have been condemned by multiple publications, regulators, countries, etc. Most cars don't just flip off the road, they usually roll over because of a collision. The RRRs are a simple calculation of the heaviest parts of the vehicle vs. width vs. height. Is the Aztek less likely than an Excursion to roll over? Probably. Does that mean you should be flaunting its RRR score? Not at all.
5) That Aztek's late-firing airbag is a *VERY* serious issue. This is an engineering flaw. Not all airbag sensors are created equal. A well-tuned airbag sensor should be able to sense such a simple collision as hitting a wall easily and accurately. They should be recalled and fixed. An airbag that fires late in a collision could easily kill you.
1. Kinetically speaking (kinetics is the study of motion and the forces causing it), it is irrelevant whether the barrier moves or is fixed. Instead what is Actually relevant in a real crash is the relative MASSES of the vehicles colliding. If my vehicle is twice as heavy as yours, you are EIGHT times more likely to die (see www.crashtest.com ).
2. I searched for the word "coincidence" in my post and the page of discussion... could not find an instance. Who are you quoting? Also - while busy slamming GM's safety record you might be surprised to discover GM was the first manufacturer in the world to offer airbags. And if GM is so bad, how did the new Impala/Monte get 5/5 NHTSA stars, and how did the Seville and LeSabre both get "Good - Best Pick" IIHS ratings(different platforms but same outstanding results)? Even the Rendezvous was rated at least "Average" by IIHS, and the Aztek scored 3/4 NHTSA stars. By the way IIHS never mentions this but only 10% of inter-vehicular crashes are driver-side frontal offset. As for safety dogs/duds, many manufacturers have at least one model they are not very proud of... check out the PT Cruiser's crash results. GM's SUV's universally poor? Then how did the Yukon XL score 4/4 NHTSA stars?
3. Highway speeds... are above the threshold for an optimum spread of test results. A more extreme example: if you chose to propel every test vehicle into the wall at 125 MPH, they would all look about the same - a flattened mass of steel. Hmm... no differentiated comparative data there....
4. Rollover ratings - may be a little unrealistic but the fact is Aztek is the BEST. Get over it... perhaps as part of your studies you can invent a better (but still cost-effective) way to rate rollover safety.
5. My wife and I are not fretting/sweating out the wait for a recall. NHTSA says - our car got 3/4 stars. We always wear seat belts, we drive defensively and we have a relatively heavy car. God willing, we'll be just Fine thank you.
2) GM used to be an incredible company. Their classic cars are amazing. Ford began airbag research, Chevy installed airbags on a test fleet in 1973, and Mercedes was the first to offer it on all their models in 1986.
NHTSA rates vehicles out of FIVE stars, not four. That's the Euro NCAP test. The Aztek scored 3 out of FIVE stars driver, four out of five passenger. Three stars means 21%-35% chance or serious head injury. The Yukon also got 3/5 for the driver and 4/5 for the passenger, with the added bonus of an extremely high thigh/knee impact recorded. The Yukon XL got 4/5 and 4/5 (damn, the thing is big enough). Sure, manufacturers have their duds, but considering the sheer number of SUVs GM cranks out, you'd think a couple would score "Good" overall. I never said Chrysler made crashworthy products.
5) Airbags are SUPPLEMENTAL restraints. The front seatbelts are designed to reel out under heavy loads and let you hit the airbag that's supposedly there. I'm glad you wear your seatbelt and drive defensively and sit in a huge peice of metal and plastic, but that has little to do with a giant cushion or air punching you in the face at the wrong time during a collission when you're three inches away from eating the plastic steering wheel.
1. It appears you contradicted yourself in two ways in part (1) of your #3342. First - obviously it is relevant whether the object you hit is deformable. But with that knowledge, how can it be said that "NHTSA's test is like hitting a car dead on"? At best, one might be able to say it resembles an "Incredibly rigid car fixed to a stationary barrier". But even that is reaching. And the only way in which IIHS's tests resemble hitting a real vehicle, aside from the barrier's deformation, is if in real life you hit a vehicle with exactly the same mass, crush characteristics, dynamic state, and frictional interaction with the road. Quite a tall order. What I was getting at before is that in the real world, you only get to choose your own vehicle, not the mass of the one you hit.
2. Your opinion, while valid, contrasts with mine. I believe GM still is an incredible company and they continue to be in the lead in technical innovation. Any other companies offering Night Vision Enhancement, an active safety feature? Guess not. HUD and OnStar - which alerts emergency personnel the moment your airbag deploys? Nope (although OnStar may soon become available via license for some other makes). I don't have time to list more. BTW here's a couple links for you to research, validating that GM was first to sell airbags to the public, in 1974 Buicks.
http://members.aol.com/carleyware/library/timeline.htm
http://www.motorage.com/edindex/1970.htm
3. Perhaps I should have clarified, if you look at www.nhtsa.org you will see I meant three stars for the Aztek driver (of five OF COURSE) and four of Five for the front passenger. Your comment about Chrysler is an artful dodge (no pun intended) but does nothing to refute my point that every mfgr. has a spread of safety results for their products and some non-GM offerings are quite poor.
4. no comments needed since there is no hope of refuting the point - as made clear by your lack of response
5. I neglected to mention before another source of our peace of mind - an extensive list of active safety features on the Aztek, including ABS, TCS, automatic door locks, HUD, and steering wheel stereo controls. Not to mention the other passive SUPPLEMENTAL restraint - side airbags, standard equipment (why ON EARTH are they OPTIONAL on some Toyotas and Fords?)
I have no idea how to make RRRs more accurate but IMO they're total BS and shouldn't be publicized until someone comes up with something more intellegent.
I agree wholeheartedly that side impact airbags should be standard. I personally like the Volkswagen approach best, though. ALL their vehicles (except the New Beetle and TT, which have head protection built into the side airbags) have front, side, and head curtain airbags STANDARD. VW will also have ESP/ASR standard on all models soon, too. Now that's caring.
BTW, OnStar is available in several manufacturers, including Audi and Saab. I hear good things about it, but it has little to do with automotive engineering. Maybe GM should develop further in communications.
VW has some good cars, no doubt. It's nice how they "care". It's also nice to be able to choose freely among a spread of safety ratings among all available vehicles. Why doesn't the US Government mandate that all vehicles get 5 (out of Five) NHTSA stars? Because many consumers realize that it costs money to comply with yet more regulations, and tradeoffs would come along with such compliance. Toyota for example has great safety ratings on its Sienna - and we priced them before we got our Aztek (even though the Sienna's styling is stupifyingly boring IMHO). But a Sienna would have stickered $3k more than our Aztek, comparably equipped, and still not had the HUD, steering wheel stereo controls, 6-disk CD changer, bold styling, or camping capability which came on our Aztek. It's nice to be free to make such a choice!
maxintosh - are you aware that Saab is a GM subsidiary?
Also - a strange idea, that - to believe OnStar is not part of automotive engineering...
I don't mean to quibble but the interaction is not disproportionate! The momentum transfer is, in fact, proportional: m1dv1 = -m2dv2
tidester
Host
SUVs
tidester
Host
SUVs
Chrysler almost apologized when they brought their new minivan out stating that they would have designed it differently (more $) had they known safety would sell. Right now, they are apparently playing with their new van-wagon Pacifica to get its safety up to a high level. Every manufacturer shoud do this, right?
Only folks lacking a grasp of basic physics can earnestly proclaim mass to be a red herring. It matters... A LOT in real crashes. A good star rating is a big help, no doubt. But it's only part of the equation.
Want to talk about broken legs? OK take a look at some femur loads from www.nhtsa.org:
format: model - NHTSA d/p stars - drvr.left - drvr.rt - pass.left - pass.rt
Pontiac Aztek 3/4 268 290 321 270
Nissan Quest 5/5 531 814 571 798
Honda Passport 4/4 624 895 900 993
Hmmm... wonder what it would feel like to have a 993 lb load imposed on my upper right leg bone!
GM is below the top of the crashworthiness heap for a variety of reasons. One of the big ones is that consumers have made it clear the safety ratings are just one of many features they want, including performance, versatility, value, styling and - lest we forget - ACTIVE safety features. Aztek delivers it all.
Yeah. Tell that to the kid in the Civic that gets slammed into at highway speeds by a Chevy Suburban.
I'm sure both drivers have the same exact chance of survival.
When comparing crash test results, I would stick to comparing vehicle of similar size and weight only. In a true world crash, it is always safer in a larger and heavier vehicle.
Size is relevant in head-on collissions especially. It doesn't matter as much if you rear-end a car or side swipe one.
Height is especially important in side impact collissions. However, the IIHS set up a real world collission between a big old Ford pickup truck and a Volvo and BMW sedan where the Ford truck struck it directly in the side at a small angle. The head impact curtains in the Volvo and the sausage in the BMW reduced the loads on the dummy's heads (which were at the same level as the hood of the truck) to completley tolerable levels.
Also, Audi did a real world test once between the A3, a compact Golf-sized hatchback and the A8 -- a real tank of a luxury car. They collided head-on offset to strike on both driver's side. The A3 certainly had significantly more damage done to its body and engine, and was pretty much totalled. Yet the car, which earned top marks in the Euro NCAP test, kept the injury measures on the dummies in very low and certainly survivable.
Also consider that it's harder to avoid collissions in an SUV and they're more likely to roll over.
In the end, injury claim measures are somewhat lower on SUVs, but not nearly TWICE as low as kermetic would like to suggest.
The fact is, engineering is just as important as mass. A compact car with good crumple zones, a rigid occupant protection cell, strong pillars and door frames, front, side, and head impact airbags, seatbelt pretensioners and load limiters, and good head restraints will be just fine for anybody who doesn't need to go off roading, transport an entire soccer team, or swallow huge amounts of cargo.
SUVs and trucks that fail to conform with crash compatability regulations, which aren't enforced, are the problem. Those cars have weak bumpers which often sit to high and make the car "ride over" its victim.
format: model - NHTSA d/p stars - drvr.left - drvr.rt - pass.left - pass.rt
Pontiac Aztek 3/4 268 290 321 270
Lexus RX300 4/5 1556 1952 1032 513 *Oh My God!!!*
Honda Civic 5/5 410 573 840 526
Honda Odyssey 5/5 605 644 606 684
Mercury Mountaineer 4/4 1078 1355 942 826
Aztek is kinder on your legs than all the above vehicles. Lexus - shame on you!
I could not find any results for Audi A3's or A8's at NHTSA - but the A6 scored only "acceptable" in IIHS offset tests, including a rating of "marginal" for both legs/feet injury.
I'm still trying to discern where I said anything about SUV injury claims being twice as low.... although it wouldn't surprise me.
If you feel safe in a compact car with the design attributes you listed - great! Go for it. Just remember that on average you're EIGHT times more likely to die than me, if my twice-as-heavy vehicle hits you. With all the features you listed, maybe it's only FOUR times. Kinetic energy is directly proportional to mass and the square of velocity. Whatever energy your structure cannot absorb, will instead be presented as a new and suddenly different acceleration/velocity for you to endure. In fact, the lighter car is also more likely to receive the added bonus of a second collision (now with NO airbag) after the first, since they are often still moving!