Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
~alpha
Still looking for parts availability(brakepads etc). All in all i know i made the right choice in choosing a verona over the malibu
Thanks
Quote - Crash Test Results
NHTSA Ratings
Passenger: Not Tested
Driver: Not Tested
Side Impact Front: Not Tested
Side Impact Rear: Not Tested
Rollover Rating: Not Tested
IIHS Ratings
Crash Offset: Not Tested
Bumper Bash: Not Tested
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/suzuki/verona/100314852/safety.ht- ml?tid=edmunds.n.safetymmindex.content.num4.0.suzuki*
Edmunds does not do crash testing, they just report it (sometimes inaccurately, by the way).
On the Malibu thread, the posters were saying that they saw on Motor Week (usually appears on PBS) that the IIHS has finished its battery of midsize dynamic side impact crash testing. This test is substantially more difficult and very different from the outdated, misleading NHTSA side-impact test.
According to IIHS procedure, only the base version of a vehicle will be tested. This means if side impact restraints are NOT standard, the IIHS will test a model WITHOUT the option. HOWEVER, the manufacturer can have the vehicle retested WITH the optional side airbags IF they reimburse the IIHS for the cost of the vehicle. (The IIHS will still independently pick the vehicle off a dealer lot, from what I understand).
In the Malibu forum, the poster pointed out that the brief Motor Week blurb did not elaborate on the specifics of the vehicles, and the only one that was mentioned was the Suzuki Verona, for its poor performance that could not be improved by a re-test because there is no side airbag option.
~alpha
http://www.autosite.com/library/advocate/ftcoctan.asp that simply states higher octane fuel for a car with no knock or normal and not high compression ratios is a waste. Regular grade is fine and its best to follow the car manual. Verona's manual states that you could add 87 octane or higher. My experience on the Verona was like this;
On adding 93 grade the first time there was a slight hesitation initially till within 2 hours the car "tuned" up to the 93 grade. I find that it runs great and smoother but the difference is not a big one. I guess you could use what you like but nothing lower than 87.
As lil302000 points out, higher compression is usually used in higher performance engines. There are quite a lot of "family" cars that do qualify though, and the manufacturer will tell you (usually on a tag next to the fuel filler pipe) as well as in the Owner Manual what octane you should be running. Also, supercharging causes a need for "premium" fuel even though the engine itself does not have a high compression ratio. A too high compression ratio can actually decrease engine performance because it makes it difficult for the engine to rotate against the high pressure.
You can use a google search to find a lot on the subject if you are that deeply interested.
The IIHS, at the end of the day, is in it for their own (insurance company) interest. I've noticed that the dummies knees are practically touching the dash to begin with, so it's no surprise when "high" leg injuries are reported and they can raise the premiums. I do not like how they have managed to manipulated vehicle design and force (i.e. shame) nearly every car to have extremely rigid structures, significantly reducing protection in low speed crashes. The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe.
Why isn't more attention given to head restraint performance? Because it doesn't have the "shock and awe" quality of a car after being slammed into a barrier for the media to feast on. Nor does it come with the high $ figure for bumper repair costs to scare owners. It is all about $$$ and their interest. Afterall, whiplash is the most personal injury related to crashes.
As I have said before, it is unbelievable that GM/Suzuki is not selling the Forenza and Verona with side-airbags, when it is as simple as it could possibly be. Has anyone contacted them?
1)"I've noticed that the dummies knees are practically touching the dash to begin with, so it's no surprise when "high" leg injuries are reported and they can raise the premiums."
Are you kidding me? Then why is it that the top models in ALL OF THE TESTED CLASSES have extremely low injury measures for the femur and tibia? And on which engineering basis are you judging that the drivers knees are too close? It seems to me that you saw a test, and you simply "think" that they are positioned to close to the dash. Not a very good case for your argument.
2) "I do not like how they have managed to manipulated vehicle design and force (i.e. shame) nearly every car to have extremely rigid structures, significantly reducing protection in low speed crashes."
What are you talking about? How has protection in low speed crashes been compromised? Show me facts, data, and articles to prove that there has been a reduction in low speed crash safety. Then, when you sustantiate this claim, explain to me how this ALLEGED loss in low speed crash protection has occured at the cost of higher speed crash protection.
3)"Why isn't more attention given to head restraint performance?"
Every year, the IIHS evaluates head restraints, and berates poor geometry and design, which has resulted in SIGNIFICANTLY improved head restraints in modern cars-ones that lock in place, have a greater adjustable range. This information is plainly available on the IIHS website, and is included in vehicle evaluations.
4)"The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe."
Really? Hmmn. You want to talk about misleading? Have you SEEN the NHTSA frontal crash barrier? How many people do you know hit brick walls? Are you aware that the NHTSA test has not changed at all since its inception in 1979? As far as "realism" goes, the IIHS test, and barrier are far more representative.
Bmcclain, it is clear that you do NOT take advantage of the IIHS' FREE publication, "Status Report" about all the research and tests that go on. Perhaps you should. You are sorely lacking in education on safety testing and issues.
Others, please dont misinterpret me. I am not saying the IIHS is the best thing since sliced bread, nor that it is perfect, nor that it is not without industry based motives. I am simply stating that the more demanding crash testing performed by this organization has improved the overall level of safety of today's vehicles. If you look at the facts, to make wild, unsubstantiated claims as did bmcclain has.... is to sensationalize an issue exactly as he seemingly despises the IIHS for. Quite ironic.
Finally, I'd like to point this out: The IIHS was NOT the first to develop the offset test. It had been used by European gov'ts for a good deal of time prior to its introduction here, and was in part developed my automobile manufacturers. I'm not positive, but I believe M-B, BMW, and Volvo had been doing this type of testing for years before the IIHS started it.
~alpha
Ofcourse there is nothing like the age old motto : " Drive safely and buckle up" and a host of other safety precautions set by the DMV's.
Just finished the 2nd J.D. Powers survey and basically gave it all 9's with a few 10's and a few 8's. (Sorry I don't believe that any mass produced item can get a 10's since they have to compromise to sell to the masses.) Most of the lower ratings I gave were for categories about distinctive appearance which were a bit silly since most all mid-sized sedans look alike anyway, and, for some interior controls and item placements that annoy me in all cars.
Milage is at or near the estimates. The cold running hesitation has gotten much better on it's own. Also, my dealer said that there was a service notice that said to wait 5-10 seconds before giving the engine any throttle - a 'computer thing'. The engine never stumbles when we do this. (We do use 93 octane gas from anywhere.) Besides, it's good for any engine to let a little oil flow before blasting off.
The engine power is taking a definite leap as time goes by, and, I give it more hard running. I think that the Verona should not be turned down based on the initial road tests that claim low power. There are some situations where you might want to pre-select 3rd or hit the throttle slightly ahead of time to give the transmission computer notice to get break-neck acceleration. But this engine does NOT perform as badly as some V6 affectionadoes would want you to believe. The 'Real-World' performance and acceleration of the Verona is more than adequate, certainly beyond many mid-sized sedan 4s, and, is in no way unsafely slow! The thing that the Verona does well when accelerating is produce a constant, smooth, predictable rate of acceleration over a wide band of RPMs.
I am suprised that auto reviewers have yet to pick up on the fact that the Verona engine holds about the same amount of oil as the cooling system holds coolant. Suzuki did something similar to their oil-cooled motorcycle engines and then proceeded to totally dominate endurance racing all over the world. I am looking forward to a very long lasting engine with this car.
Your comments on the power provided by the sophisticated 6 banger are dead on too.
I invite everyone to look at the shoulders of the dummies and their relation to the B-pillar in every vehicle tested. Nearly the entire body (if not all) of the dummy is in front of the B-pillar. Next, sit in the driver's seat of your vehicle (with the seat positioned in the normal, comfortible driving position) and note the proximity of your shoulders and torso in relation to the B-pillar. Excellent, now how far away are your knees from the dash? Now adjust the seat to where your torso and shoulders are in front of the B-pillar as in the tests. Note the closeness and uncomfort while mimicing adjusting the foot pedals (as if driving). Also, the next time you have the chance, observe other motorists sitting position... do the results match up? They didn't for me. Take a look after the door has been taken off post crash in vehicle that had zero A-pillar movement... knees are against the dash. Why? I'm suspicious, especially when people are advised to sit a healthy distance away from the airbags, yet the videos show the airbags deploying into the dummy...
Tell me, what are the side-effects of being in a very stiff structure during and impact just under the airbag threshold? I've read driver accounts of very painful injuries. The IIHS also wants front-ends to not bend in bumper tests, because it costs a lot more to replace the parts that dissipate the energy.
Yes, the IIHS covers head restraint performance, yet it is quietly tucked away. The offset test has been used by European governments, but not private party insurance consortiums.
Your analysis of the IIHS is so flawed, its unbelievable.
I find it interesting, behind the shouting, that you do not answer any of the logic or provide your own... why not? I am interested in hearing your logic, not recaps of press releases.
4)"The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe."
Really? Hmmn. You want to talk about misleading? Have you SEEN the NHTSA frontal crash barrier? How many people do you know hit brick walls? Are you aware that the NHTSA test has not changed at all since its inception in 1979? As far as "realism" goes, the IIHS test, and barrier are far more representative."
Here you are essentially saying "It's broken... but the NHTSA is too!" Let me help, in what way is the IIHS barrier 'far more representative?'
IMO, Because of the IIHS's influence, car buyers and manufacturers put a lot of importance on what the IIHS's fraction of overall type of crash results are made to show.
For the record, in my last post, I did not "shout" at anyone. THIS WOULD BE SHOUTING (ask anyone- all caps is considered shouting- using question marks, exlamation point, and periods- is not). Nowhere in my post was I disrespectful or did I yell.
---------------------------------------------
I think you have a few misconceptions. For every fact that I state on these threads, I try to offer substantial citations to support my claims. How you are interpreting that as illogical, is perplexing.
The fact of the matter is that you have not provided any data, other than the anecdotal "I have heard that" type to support your claim that the IIHS offset testing has increased injuries to occupants in low speed crashes. You have not even provided the logic, which you so covet, as to why this would be the case.
First, with regard to dummy positioning. I apologize for being curt, but unless you are an engineer who has worked in automotive crash safety, you will NOT convince me that your casual observations are more true to real life than the scientific/engineering procedures that are used in one of the most high-tech crash facilities in the world. If you want logic as to why I, by default, agree with how dummies are place- As you noted, auto manufacturers indeed pay attention to the IIHS test. If there was some MAJOR flaw, which you certainly feel there is, do you not think that this flaw would have been discovered, questioned, or exposed by automobile manufacturers? Given the distinct possiblity for bad press, I would think that auto mfrs. would be more than willing to point to flaws, or ANY practices that stray from generally accpeted principles and procedures. Additionally, do you have any evidence to support that the auto manufacturers themselves test differently, or in a more "correct" manner?
You state "Tell me, what are the side-effects of being in a very stiff structure during and impact just under the airbag threshold? I've read driver accounts of very painful injuries. The IIHS also wants front-ends to not bend in bumper tests, because it costs a lot more to replace the parts that dissipate the energy."
It seems you are confused. A high rating in a 5MPH bumper test requires no manipulation of a vehicle's "front-end". Rather, it does require a strong bumper system. A well designed, strong bumper system DOES NOT inherently mean that a VEHICLES front end be overly rigid, and indeed, there are manufacturers whose designs include a strong bumper system, a cumple zone to absorb crash energy, and a strong safety cage to protect occupants. Furthermore, if we are going on anecdotal evidence, as you often choose to do, I have not "heard" of severe injuries in low speed crashes due to a vehicle that was too stiff. Perhaps this could be the case when occupants do not wear seatbelts, but to that end, you get what you pay for. If occupants wearing seatbelts are in accidents low enough in impact speed as to avoid airbag inflation, I would call it RARE that injuries other than possible seatbelt bruises or general soreness be the case.
You then state "The offset test has been used by European governments, but not private party insurance consortiums". Was that you making a point or offering logic? If so, I think we all missed it.
"Here you are essentially saying "It's broken... but the NHTSA is too!" Let me help, in what way is the IIHS barrier 'far more representative?'"
No. What I am saying is that if you are going to criticize crash testing, it should probably be the NHTSA, whose results are more widely publicized, but have little meaning in the real world. Studies have shown that the IIHS test in general, being offset, is a much more likely occurance in real accidents than are full frontal crashes. Additionally, the deformable honeycomb structure used by the IIHS is more representative of a another vehicle than is the full frontal barrier. It also allows for standardization among weight classes. Short of using another vehicle (which may skew the results of the vehicle being tested), the deformable honeycomb is the most realistic representation out there, and is used in practices around the world. Theres my point.
"IMO, Because of the IIHS's influence, car buyers and manufacturers put a lot of importance on what the IIHS's fraction of overall type of crash results are made to show."
Im curious as to what other types of testing you'd like to see. It would seem that testing for the two most deadly of accidents- frontal and side impacts- allows for consumers to gain the knowledge on which cars do better in accidents, and which do not. Depending on personal preferences, consumers can weigh the possible consequences of choosing a vehicle rated poorly, or one rated highly. I'm happy about the opportunity.
Best regards,
~alpha
PS- Thank you, Ingtonge, for your support. And bmcclain, I'd like to point out that it seems as though I'm not alone out there in my analysis and educated utilization of the IIHS testing.
Thanks.
The IIHS is not an unbiased defacto source for all things safety. The government is more unbiased because they are tained by money (debatable). I.e. economic gain. Not only that, but the IIHS is equally as private party as you and me. Have you not read of the IIHS dirty dealings with red-light cameras? That is one topic alone. I invite everyone to weigh all of the issues, not simply live off of what is force fed to you.
I also provided my observations, and invited everyone to do the same, think for themselves. I also offered possible areas where the IIHS has manipulated automotive engineering.
The barrier clearly does not accurately simulate hitting another vehicle at the same speed with the same weight. Another vehicle, or similarly weighted sled will be more accurate. (see similar tests conducted with two of the same cars) The "impacting a similar vehicle of a similar weight" logic is thrown out of the window when the barrier is not as tall as SUVs and pick-ups are, changing their performance.
This also has changed automotive engineering. The manufacturers have strengthened the bottom areas of the large trucks and SUVs in order to stop the entire vehicle (as in IIHS test) in an even smaller area compared to other vehicles. Enter that into the real world, the super-stiff structures can cause significant damage.
alpha01, though I took no offence, "ALL OF THE TESTED CLASSES" (just as it appeared) is clearly shouting with your definition. That aside,
To answer your question, ("Im curious as to what other types of testing you'd like to see") I would like the offset tests (which provide their portion of crash safety) to use a weighted sled, as in the side-impact tests, instead of the barrier that "simulates" another vehicle using whatever logic. If the IIHS tests are to simulate real-world results, then real world human/dummy position should match up, when it clearly does not.
Additionally, do you have any evidence to support that the auto manufacturers themselves test differently, or in a more "correct" manner?
Yes, I do:
"In a written statement to CNN, GM said: "This test does not reflect the wide variety of crash modes that GM considers in the design, engineering and testing of our vehicles, nor can it account for all of a vehicle's crash avoidance."
A Daewoo spokesman told CNN that the company "abides by the test results of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the only federally authorized tests," and that Daewoo cars meet all government requirements."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/04/11/crash.tests.01/index.html
Have fun.
Edit: Well, I just looked and I don't see anything that is appropriate. Then I did two separate searches, one for iihs and the other for crash test. That turns up a few archived discussions, but nothing active.
I'm sure it will be fine if you start another one, and I suspect it will flourish.
My Verona has been completely flawless on its functioning. That is a "first" in my experience with new cars. Whatever recall existed was taken care of before the car was turned over to me.
Regarding power, there may be more now, the transmission may be learning, or I might simply be getting more accustomed to the car. In any case, the power has always been adequate in this flat valley. It also had ample power going over the coastal mountain range between here and the ocean.
One car reviewer, not in this forum, suggested that the lift cylinders for the hood should have been used for the trunk. I don't agree. The Verona trunk lid is as easy to operate as any that I have ever used. I like having the hood stay up without manipulating a holding rod.
Has anyone found an after-market source for the oil filter?
Happy Motoring Veronaowners!!!
thanks
http://home.netcom.com/~klazys/invisbra.htm
http://www.jsonline.com/wheels/test/feb04/207399.asp