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
I for one would not even consider the thought of a trade in!!! I am very satisfied with my Verona.
"Institute of Integral Handwriting Studies"???????
The Verona did much better then the Leganza but it's still behind the game. If you compare the damage to the Galant, you will see the safety cage was more stressed and showed signs of buckling. It was also the only new car tested to have a poor injury rating. I find it interesting that the dummy's leg wacked the center console area hard enough to break the heck out of the plastic. No other car showed that kind of damage.
For those who like to discredit IIHS, you should finally see their testing leads to good things since their test brought to light a serious fault in the design of the airbag that could have led to serious head injuries. It was the IIHS's test that led to the safety recall that veronaowner experienced.
Not bad.
(Ingtonge, well said, by the way)
~alpha
The airbag issue has nothing to do with design.
"Suzuki engineers subsequently determined there was a manufacturing defect -- the airbag inflation module was improperly wired."
Better GM/Suzuki quality control? I don't think that the Daewoo Magnus had this problem.
While we are given a generally poor view of the IIHS test results, the dummy's knees are positioned against the dash. It is clearly evident in the Subaru Legacy post test picture. The measurements say that the dash panel only moved rearward one centimeter, on the right side which is out of view, and zero on the left side. It is impossible to not allow the knees to impact the dash in this position.
Some people might drive with their knees against the dash, but I don't, so I can safely throw the leg "injury" measurements out. The Verona had some of the very lowest head impact measurement ratings, better than the Malibu for one, which costs more. I can recover much better from a leg injury than a head injury.
The floorpan does move to the bottom of the a-pillar in most cars. This forces the feet back, and the legs up, at unnatural angles if the person is too far forward, as in these tests. Leg "injuries" from this unnatural position? Yes.
Saying this cars plastic broke more than the other is frivolous. Things bend. Things break. This is an extreme test (nothing like anonymousposts's crash). If the dash moves rearward, the center console can be sheared. Is it from shearing, or the leg impact? It is hard to tell from the very small pictures.
"the safety cage was more stressed and showed signs of buckling"
Did you bother looking at the crash measurements? The two Veronas had wild variations, just at the twice tested Altima and Elantra have. The first Verona's A-pillar moved only 2 centimeters rearward. The second Verona was shown (6). It goes to show that even among the small fraction of crashes that the tests try to recreate, even among them, considerable variations occur. The statistics and ratings made are nearly rendered useless by these variations alone!
That's nice bmmclain but I seriously doubt people's knees hit the lower panel because they drive that way. You'd be amazed at what body parts contact the interior of the car during a crash.
"The floorpan does move to the bottom of the a-pillar in most cars. This forces the feet back, and the legs up, at unnatural angles if the person is too far forward, as in these tests. Leg "injuries" from this unnatural position? Yes."
So how much further back should a person sit then?
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were there when I had my accident. I was cruising down a 4 lane highway at approx. 50 MPH when a Grand AM made a left hand turn in front of me. I had no time to respond so my car was still accelerating when I hit her. The impact was enough to spin my car around at a 180 degree angle (I ended up facing the opposite direction on the highway) and the impact was also strong enough to send her car 10ft to the side of the impact. They were taken to the hospital while I had no bruises, scratches (other than a slight mark on each arm from where the airbag deployed), or other injuries to speak of. In my SI both doors still opened, no glass shattered, there were no interior trim pieces broken, and there was certainly no rearward movement by the dash. By the way, I am also 5'2 which means I have to sit pretty close to the steering wheel so interior intrusion could be/would have been harmful.
If you look at the Verona the roof shows signs of bucking and the interior was destroyed. Regardless of what you think I would have little piece of mind knowing that my dash will crack and my roof start to buckle when other sedans suffer from neither fate in the same crash.
So, my question is if the dummy's knees are touching the dashboard, why is it that an overwhelming majority of cars tested now do not produce any leg injuries? I still find your assessment of the dummy positioning rudimentary, as you are not privy to the specifications by which the IIHS tests (nor am I).
"Did you bother looking at the crash measurements? The two Veronas had wild variations, just at the twice tested Altima and Elantra have. The first Verona's A-pillar moved only 2 centimeters rearward. The second Verona was shown (6). It goes to show that even among the small fraction of crashes that the tests try to recreate, even among them, considerable variations occur. The statistics and ratings made are nearly rendered useless by these variations alone!"
I dont think 4cm is a wild variation. More important than the numbers specifically is the repeatability in the patterns of damage. I cant think of a case in which deformation of the front end as well as any deformation of the passenger space has not been startlingly identical. There are normal, and statistically acceptable variations between each car that rolls off the assembly line. (This is the same reason why, lets stay.. Car and Driver can test one example of a car, and later test AN IDENTICALLY EQUIPPED model, but this time, its 5 tenths of a second faster/slower to 60, or stops 8 feet shorter/longer.)
bmcclain- Should we discredit all empirical evidence?
Personally, I think the Verona provided very good safety in the IIHS test, with injury measures not life-threatening, and an occupant compartment that did not sustain significant damage.
Its fine that you dislike the IIHS testing. The bottom line is, the testing has enhanced automotive safety in this country. Your contentions appear valid on the surface, but are based on incorrect logic and/or unproven assumptions (such as the "knees touching the dashboard"). Youre free to think as you wish. Just dont expect the majority of others here to buy it. Personally, I dont get the impression you know as much about crash testing as you like to try and convey. It was only about... what, two or so months a ago that you were devaluing the IIHS tests because you felt that they forced automakers to design cars with "rigid" front ends, which is completely opposite of what the testing has helped car mfrs. to do. (Recap: Its crush zone, then rigid safety cage).
~alpha
Do you doubt that the manufacturers that crash test a lot, and charge alot more for their cars across all lines, don't engineer their products for those known crash tests in much the same way that they engineer for the gas mileage tests?
Have you ever heard any statements like - "Because we scored 'G' instead of 'A' we can gaurantee you xx.xx% higher probability of having better outcome in your next real-life crash"?
Do any crash tests results determine what would have happened had the speeds used been 3mph faster or slower? Are the 'Gs', 'As' and 'Ms' really any measure of real-life crashes, or just hopefully?
When you can answer these questions, you can say that there is a significant reason why the Verona's results should significantly effect anyones buying decision.
Do you doubt that the manufacturers that crash test a lot, and charge alot more for their cars across all lines, don't engineer their products for those known crash tests in much the same way that they engineer for the gas mileage tests?
Have you ever heard any statements like - "Because we scored 'G' instead of 'A' we can gaurantee you xx.xx% higher probability of having better outcome in your next real-life crash"?
Do any crash tests results determine what would have happened had the speeds used been 3mph faster or slower? Are the 'Gs', 'As' and 'Ms' really any measure of real-life crashes, or just hopefully?
When you can answer these questions, you can say that there is a significant reason why the Verona's results should significantly effect anyones buying decision.
As for your thoughts on leg injuries, I don't know why you seem to think they aren't valid. I looked at numerous pics of damage after the accident and the dummy was always positioned the same distance away from the steering wheel and in almost all the cars the knees were located a good distance away from the dash. They place the dummy so that the arms reach the steering wheel and the legs reach the pedals at the optimal position. If they purposely put the dummy's legs up against the dash, wouldn't the dummy look abnormally close to the steering wheel and wouldn't the knees look like they touch the dash on every car? This is simply not the case. Look at the Altima: the left leg showed a possible injury but it was plenty far away from the dash in the pic. Leg injuries can come from the force of the floorpan pushing in and upwards or from the brake pedal moving back, not necessarily from the dash itself. Variations in dash design may put the dash closer to the knees in some cars, like the Legacy for instance. But notice that although the knees appear close to the dash in the Legacy, there were no leg injuries. So what is your explanation for that? Also, in the case of the Verona, it states the driver's seat pitched forward which would put the legs closer to the dash. As for the interior plastic breaking, you can easily tell it was caused by the right knee hitting the dash. Don't you see the clearly marked X noting where the knee made contact and the subsequent breakage around that mark? As for the buckling of the safety cage, I stand by my statement. Compare pics of the A pillar and roof structure. The top rated cars show very little to no damage in this area. The Verona shows buckling and deformation. If you can't see these simple facts, then I don't know what to tell you. All I gotta say is your opinion on the test is way off base and has no merit.
"CRASH TEST RESULTS ARE GOOD PREDICTORS OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES IN ON-THE-ROAD CRASHES"
Yes: http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm
Placing a 5’ 8” dummy (IIHS) up near the dash is asking for an “injury.” We all know how the IIHS is subject to “special interests.”
So how much further back should a person sit then?
How far away do you all sit from the dash, particularly the knees? I wanted to know this before. I personally sit as far away that is comfortable and allows optimal control, which in my case is not near the dash. I have tried sitting as they are pictured by the IIHS, and could not bear it, much less drive.
Anonymousposts, you crash –was- nothing like the offset crash test performed by the IIHS. As you describe it, the other car was hit in the side. It was not traveling the same speed, nor hit you at 40% width head on (what the IIHS replicates). The tires of the other car gave away long before the IIHS barrier would have should your car hit it. The other car was not bolted to the ground, but after an instant, sliding on its tires. Therefore, the impact was less severe, and stresses on your car’s “safety cage” much less. Please, apples to apples if you are going to say “my car had less damage than car X from a test.” Is your peace of mind a delusion then? It is good to hear that you were kept safe.
My theory is you are 5’ 2”. So your legs should be shorter in length than a 5’ 8” person/dummy’s. So, if you sit closer, your knee should still be in around the same position as a taller person sitting farther away (torso).
So, my question is if the dummy's knees are touching the dashboard, why is it that an overwhelming majority of cars tested now do not produce any leg injuries?
That question isn’t as important as ‘why are the dummies placed in a clear danger zone when it doesn’t jive with driving?’ There are always even more severe crashes than these tests. Why do this, if it is uncomfortable and impractical to drive in this position? Is it comfortable for you to sit the way they are in the crashes? It isn’t for me, and I am of a normal length and proportion.
as you are not privy to the specifications by which the IIHS tests (nor am I)
Exactly. We are using (some less than others) every little thing that the IIHS releases. Tiny images, no dummy placement measurements or reasoning, and so on. Why? What are they hiding? Why hide it? Especially if they want me to trust them with their “findings”, even before the fact that insurance companies fund them and therefore easily open to “special interests.”
If our evaluations of the tests are ”rudimentary,” then so are buyers’ evaluations of the crash results. In this case, everyone who simply looks at G, A, M, P and decides on “safety” is making a poorly informed rudimentary assessment/decision. How helpful! We should be able to read the fine print. We certainly need to for advertisements, contracts, and so on. Our lives could possibly rely on this choice!
4 cm is a wild variation in this context. 2 cm versus 6 cm. It is the exact same test, same car, and same external factors. Also, when it causes someone to have a negative opinion (as below). This is the “dramatic effect” that I have discussed before that the media loves (and apparently a few here). The 2cm movement wouldn’t have been nearly as visible that the first Verona had. The undeniable point is there are many of these variations in the test results. The variations affect the final rating, which then affects buyer John’s purchase. And with above, these variations are not explained by the IIHS. Variations make the test less worthy.
Compare pics of the A pillar and roof structure. The top rated cars show very little to no damage in this area. The Verona shows buckling and deformation.
2 centimeters of rearward movement is “very little.” However, the second Verona had 6, as shown. My point is, you cannot compare these when the other cars were only tested once. In that case, the Verona had 2 cm of rearward movement. Their second tests will vary widely as well. After all, all of the other cars tested more than once had several large differences in measurements.
"are based on incorrect logic and/or unproven assumptions (such as the "knees touching the dashboard").
This was clearly proven.
I cant think of a case in which deformation of the front end as well as any deformation of the passenger space has not been startlingly identical.
The Suzuki Verona is a clear example of this.
Just dont expect the majority of others here to buy it.
As others gobble down what the IIHS feeds them? Ironic, isn’t it?
I agree with your reasoning terryg4. However, the below G ratings for the Verona are leg/foot, methods that I have serious doubts about (excluding the kinematics - A).
Ingtonge, I’m not disputing that there was a problem. I corrected you; it was a manufacturing defect, not a design defect.
I looked at numerous pics of damage after the accident and the dummy was always positioned the same distance away from the steering wheel and in almost all the cars the knees were located a good distance away from the dash.
They are not a good distance away from the dash.
1) This one is a restatement, in attempt to clarify, since you did not answer satisfactorily.
If a huge problem is that the IIHS tests cars with dummys knees against the dashboard, why is it that most cars of the 2003/2004 cars do NOT inflict injury on the legs?
This is my question. This is not a question about placing dummies in "danger zones" or whatever. Because clearly, for many cars, regardless of where you think the IIHS is placing the dummies, it is NOT a "danger zone" since forces recorded are low.
2) All of the other cars tested more than once did NOT necessarily have significant variations in the measured cm of deformation. Additionally, as I stated before, the repeatability in patterns of deformation is much more telling than the precise measurement. The point is that cars will crush in a certain way, REPEATEDLY, in the same crash tests. "2 centimeters of rearward movement is “very little.” However, the second Verona had 6, as shown." IMO, 6 cm is still pretty insignificant, and does not change the Veronas overall Structure rating. The roof buckling is more troubling. If you review the Dateline NBC presentation of the crash tests which show BOTH the first and second Veronas, despite the difference of 4 cm, the roof showed buckling in BOTH crashes. As noted above, the repeatability in patterns of deformation is the key.
Additionally, you state that "Variations make the test less worthy." What do you not understand about the fact that slight variations in structural rigidity between each vehicle manufactured, and in fact, all facets of performance, are INHERENT in mass production.
3) You need to re-read anonymousposts crash story. In your previous post, you are basically telling him how his crash happened, which isnt what he just posted days ago. I'd tend to believe his account of the crash over yours, call me crazy.
4) Why is it that you have SUCH incredibly reservations about this crash test, whose details are more readily available than the ones NHTSA provides regarding their tests?
Why is it that you take no objection to the fact that NHTSA offers star ratings for vehicles in side impacts that DO NOT take into account the HIC recorded on the driver. Essentially, in NHTSA testing, a car can earn a 5 star impact rating but have a HIC in the 900s, perilously close to the threshold (1000) typically considered life-threatening. Why is that not a problem for you? Perhaps because the dummy's knees are positioned "correctly"?
Why is it that this test is performed almost identically in Japan and Europe and utilized by manufacturers worldwide in vehicle design, but YOU are the lone person that finds the test highly erroneous, and dismiss its value?
Why is it that you do NOT concede that the EXACT article you cite, http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm PROVES the very idea that, ceteris paribus, you and your loved ones ARE SAFER in cars that perform better in this kind of test than cars that perform only "marginally" or "acceptably"?
Finally, you acknowledge to Intonge that there was indeed a "problem" with the mfg. of the airbag system. But nowhere do you concede that without the IIHS testing, this may not have been discovered until it was too late for one exponentially unlucky consumer. This is not an isolated incident. Similar defect, whether in design or manufacture, have been found in cars ranging from the Infiniti Q45 to the Toyota Sienna. Without the offset testing done by the IIHS, such deficiencies might not have been discovered.
~alpha
What is a good distance? I want to make sure I am sitting at the proper distance away from the dash in my vehicle.
Inquiring minds want to know.
IIHS FRONTAL OFFSET CRASH TEST
VERONA: OVERALL EVALUATION: ACCEPTABLE The driver space was maintained well in both frontal offset crash tests, but measures indicate the likelihood of leg injuries. Advanced front airbag and safety belt systems and daytime running lights are pluses.
VOLVO S40: OVERALL EVALUATION: GOOD The driver space was maintained well in the frontal offset crash test, but measures indicate the possibility of lower leg injuries. Advanced front airbag and safety belt systems, side airbags with head protection, front seats designed to minimize whiplash injuries, and daytime running lights are pluses.
VERONA: STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: GOOD In both tests, there was minimal to moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel.
VOLVO S40: STRUCTURE/SAFETY CAGE: GOOD There was minimal to moderate intrusion into the driver footwell area and minimal rearward movement of the instrument panel.
VERONA: RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled in the second test. During rebound, the dummy’s head contacted the B-pillar, roof rail, and grab handle. Also, the driver's seat pitched forward slightly and tipped toward the door.
VOLVO S40: RESTRAINTS/DUMMY KINEMATICS: ACCEPTABLE Dummy movement was reasonably well controlled. During rebound, the dummy's head tilted outward, brushed the A-pillar, and continued partway out the open side window. It then contacted the head restraint.
IVERONA: NJURY MEASURES: RIGHT LEG/FOOT POOR Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions. However, forces on the right leg indicate the likelihood of lower leg injury. Forces on the left leg indicate the possibility of lower leg injury. Head accelerations from the B-pillar, roof rail, and grab handle contacts were low
VOLVO S40: INJURY MEASURES: RIGHT LEG/FOOT ACCEPTABLE Measures taken from the head, neck, and chest indicate low risk of injuries to these body regions. However, forces on the right tibia indicated the possibility of lower leg injuries. Head acceleration from the A-pillar contact was negligible.
Interesting that even though, according to you, almost all cars are rated good the Verona still only managed to rate Acceptable.
"THIS is why they place the dummies where they will be injured. "
If this statement is true then why are there sedans that exhibited very little risk of injury?
"How many inches away from the dash are your knees in the driving position?"
My husband is 6'6 therefore his knee is touching the dash in many cars. He is in a position where rearward movement of the dash could cause injury. The seating position of the dummy in the IIHS test would not matter if the Verona could limit rearward movement of the dash AND keep the dummy in one place. Next you are going to say that the dash cracking is a safety feature but I've never heard of a manufacturer intentionally creating a crumple zone in the dash.
Regardless of whether my crash was similar to the IIHS test or not, other sedans in the Veronas class do not have the same level of interior damage or possibility of injury. Fact is, the Verona experienced dummy movement and interior intrusion at a level higher than the top-rated sedans.
One thing my crash did exhibit is that the IIHS/NHTSA tests are a good indicator of how a car will perform in a real-world crash. The safety cage of my SI was maintained accordingly considering it's 5-star performance. The Grand Am I hit was in much worse shape, despite being larger and 300lbs heavier, as you would expect by viewing it's lackluster safety ratings.
I guess all of this just exists to prove one point, you get what you pay for and in the Verona's case that ain't much.
Someone compared this car to the first Accords and Camrys. The first Accord came out in the late 70's and the Camry started in the early 80's. Is that a fair comparison? I mean this isn't the first Suzuki mid-size sedan. It's the second Daewoo mid-size. It's a dramatic improvement to the Leganza. But it's still not "best pick" material. Neither Suzuki nor GM had anything to do with the crash structure of this car as it was designed by Daewoo.
I've found the IIHS site to be peppered with some of the same inconsistancies that tekrek has. Even before I posted about this test, I saw them. Similar injury measurements, different ratings. His post sums it up very well, along with my feelings on the Verona issue. These inconsistancies cripple the actual value of the ratings!
If this statement is true then why are there sedans that exhibited very little risk of injury?
Evolution of vehicle design. The IIHS tests have had impact on this. However, now that the cars are catching up with their test, they are implimenting the side-impact test to lower the scores again. They can't have all G's. They make a living on insurance premiums.
Next you are going to say that the dash cracking is a safety feature but I've never heard of a manufacturer intentionally creating a crumple zone in the dash.
There are crumple zones (equivalent) in dashes! 'Knee bolsters' are to sheild the knees from the stiff dash frame. There are layers of padding, and bars that give specifically for this purpose. I do see that this dash movement is more important to your husband. In my case, it isn't. Seriously though, what % of the population is his height?
Fact is, the Verona experienced dummy movement and interior intrusion at a level higher than the top-rated sedans.
OK. The Verona had the lowest head injury criterion. It bested the the top rated sedans. Hmmm... head... legs... head... legs... Obvious for me.
Veronas class do not have the same level of interior damage
Next you will be complaining about the paint being scratched. It's frivolous to worry about cosmetic damage (as in interior trim) in a totaled car.
One thing my crash did exhibit is that the IIHS/NHTSA tests are a good indicator of how a car will perform in a real-world crash.
No it didn't. If the two of you swapped cars, your car would have had more damage. The crash wasn't the same for both cars. One of the first things to remember in crash safety (and this is on all crash websites and car owners manuals) is that the amount of 'damage' has no relevance to safety. However, crash tests do give an indicator of a similar real life crash (it's their point, but the IIHS is in it for money, not safety). gee35coupe says it best:
"They have controlled tests to compare how these cars would compare under similar condition."
With regard to the Volvo S40 and the Verona ratings. The text may read similarly, but point to me, where, besides HIC, is the Verona better? With specific regard to structure, the S40 did NOT experience the seat tipping and roof buckling that the tested Veronas did.
You seem to be against the IIHS tests for the simple fact that it is an industry funded program. So what? You state yourself that the evolution of design has stemmed, in part, to this crash testing. What is the issue then? Comparing scores of the old vehicles to new versions of similar vehicles shows that this, and other, types of testing are worthwhile.
Your claim that the side impact testing is yet another scheme to make money is rather outlandish. Creating safer cars means fewer deaths, and fewer injuries... exactly how does that positively affect the insurance industry? Arent higher premiums a result of greater risk exposure? In that light, it would be smart of the insurance industry to stop crash testing altogether, and instead fund some type of report that merits the widespread non-usage of safety belts.
Mind you, I agree with your statements on some of the IIHS's faux pas, such as the red-light running. The crash testing is different. It is based on the programs that have been developed and proven by the Gov'ts and mfrs in many countries.
I have a question. If NHTSA took over the exact procedure and ratings as the IIHS currently does, how would you feel about the testing then? Additionally, you never answered my question regarding the NHTSA side impact and how it doesnt factor in head injury. You dont think this is misleading?
I will continue to disagree with you in terms of the IIHS's placement of dummies. Your contention that Suzuki may or may not have discovered the mfg. defect the next day borders on absurd. In the post above, you claim that interior damage is cosmetic. No, it most certainly isnt. The cars whose structures do not allow for roof buckling and seat tipping do not feature the amount of interior damage that the Verona has. The Verona's HIC is indeed very commendable, but anything below 400 is generally outstanding. Even so, that is just one measure- peak g's from hard hits, the time duration of the load, etc.... are all factors in head evaluations. So when comparing the Veronas HIC to the top rated vehicles, it is the best among an excellent field. The bottom line is that all performed excellently. The Verona, in comparison, does not offer the structural strength or leg protection that the top rated cars do. You contend this is due to the way dummies are positioned, and you're free to make that narrow assesment. But other cars do not inflict injury on dummies legs the way that the Verona did, and indeed, some are worse. You claim the IIHS places the dummies legs in a danger zone, but if that were the case, the leg injuries should be present for more cars.
You re-iterate Gee35's comment "They have controlled tests to compare how these cars would compare under similar condition." You seem to agree with this.
So what then, is your real beef with the IIHS testing? I highly recommend that you email the IIHS with your criticisms and ask them for explanations regarding dummy placement. I have emailed the IIHS before and received pretty timely responses. I have also emailed NHTSA regarding my criticism of their side impact testing. They emailed me back a very speedy, polite, and BS answer about how side impact testing is relatively new and will be subject to future re-evaluation. Great. But I can still buy a car like the Honda Accord 2 Door which gets great star ratings, but has an HIC in the 900s for the rear passenger.
This is my final .02 on the subject. I fully agree with gee35coupe's assement of the Verona. Good car, lots of features, worth the lack of performance, crash test scores, reliability record, poor fuel mpg? Its up to the consumers.
~alpha
The Verona was tied with an average for mixed driving, not published what the mix was, at 20MPG with 8 other cars. The measured higway MPG was 30 with stop and go in town driving at 14. The range of fuel economy average for mixed driving was between 19MPG and 26MPG for the same class of car, midsized sedan.
Verona:20:14:30
The results for other cars of note:
CAR :Mix MPG:City MPG:Hwy MPG
Verona:20:14:30
Camry V6:20:13:29
Altima 2.5:22:15:32
Stratus 4cyl:21:14:32
Taurus SES:22:15:31
Just shy of half the cars tested had a mix MPG of 20 or 21. The Verona Fuel economy is not sub-standard for other cars in the mid-sized class. It is virtually (%5 or less difference) the same as about 50% of the cars being offered in the same size class.
The Altima 2.5 bests the Verona in its 4 cylinder version AND still has more power and performance to boot. Maybe the Verona should be in the 4 cylinder "class" since that's all the power its 6 can put out. 155 is lagging in today's 6 cylinder marketplace.
The Stratus and Taurus are also rans in this field. I'd actually place them equal to or worse than the Verona.
It very telling there are no 4 cylinder Accords or Camrys in this "test". But if you look on Suzuki's own web site you'll see the Camry 4 cyl bests the Verona by at least 4 mpg hwy.
That chart pretty much sums it up. In most categories the Verona lags a good bit behind the best in it's class.
"they are implimenting the side-impact test to lower the scores again. They can't have all G's."
Again, this does not make sense. If all cars participate in the same test then the results are fair, whether you agree with side-impact testing or not. If the IIHS wanted more insurance premiums why would they rate the top-selling sedans so highly and place most of the lower-volume sedans at the bottom? Seems like they would profit more by inflating insurance costs for an Accord (which sells approx. 400,000 a year) vs. inflating insurance costs for the lowest performing car which was the Grand Am.
"There are layers of padding, and bars that give specifically for this purpose"
The whole center console of the Verona was destroyed. Is it because of cheap plastics or the dummy's forward movement. Neither scenario would make me feel good about owning a Verona.
"It's frivolous to worry about cosmetic damage (as in interior trim) in a totaled car."
It's not necessarily the interior damage that I am worried about. It's the fact that either the materials are lackluster or that the dummy impacted the console so hard that it cracked. Again, neither looks good on the Verona's resume.
My accident was a good indicator that the IIHS/NHTSA results are accurate because her car sustained severe damage by being hit in the side. According the NHTSA the Grand AM is only worthy of 3 stars in side impact while the SI I was driving received 5 stars in frontal testing. I walked away from a 50 MPH impact with no scratches, bruises, or broken bones. They went to the hospital. I can't speak about what would've happened were the positions reversed because I was not in that situation. Only thing I do know is that I hit a heavier object going 50 MPH and had no interior intrusion at all as well as no forward movement of the seat.
ALSO of note with respect to post #598 is that one of the cars tested by the publication (Consumer Reports) features a powertrain that is NO LONGER available for sale.
The Camry tested in the February 2002 issue of CR is the one with the 192hp, 4 speed automatic transmission. This is the Camry that achieved the above (and admittedly unstellar) 20/13/29.
This combination has since been replaced by a 210 hp, 5sp automatic transmission, which has not yet been tested by CR in the Camry.
Im not sure as to why CR is still reporting MPG for a powertrain that has ceased to exist, as the extra overdrive 5th gear would no doubt improve highway MPG. (Indeed, this application in the now-unavailable ES300, tested March 2002, acheieved 21/14/34).
So here's a better OVERALL picture just of the cars already mentioned:
Verona 2.5L I6: 155hp/177 ft-lbs: 20 overall/14cty/30hwy
--------------------------------
Camry 3.0L V6: 210hp/220 ft-lbs: 21/14/34
--------------------------------
Altima 2.5L I4: 175hp/185 ft-lbs: 22/15/32
--------------------------------
Taurus 3.0L DOHC: 201hp/207 ft-lbs: 22/15/31
--------------------------------
Stratus 2.4L: 150hp/155ft-lbs: 21/14/32
Of course, this list has conveniently left off the Accord, Camry, and Malibu 4s which averaged 24MPG on the CR test loop, and out-accelerate the I6 Verona, and the Malibu V6 which will out-accelerate all the above and was tested at 26MPG overall.
~alpha
We can see that some of us have different interpretations of the testing and the results, and we can ALSO see that none of us are going to change each other's minds, no matter how heated these exchanges get.
It's time to agree to disagree on this and move on. Everyone has made his or her best points and it's time to let our readers make up their own minds by taking our opinions into consideration along with doing their own research.
So ... anyone have something different to contribute about the Verona?
With regard to the Verona, the simple fact is that given the unimpressive fuel consumption, performance is modest. bmcclain, you want to factor in price? Fine. The Verona has a poorer acceleration/fuel economy compromise than any vehicle I can think of at the 20K price point. It also has more "features" at that price point than any other car I can think of. But for many consumers, including myself "features" does not equate to VALUE.
~alpha
I have yet to drive one, but from what I read, the driving aspects are favorable.
~alpha
No, I was not there to destroy, but rather to examine w/o a sales person covering me like a wet coat.
I am 6-4 tall. I put my padded american rump in the driver seat and adjusted it backwards so I would have "room" to sit comfortably. Then I adjusted the tilt wheel and mirror as if I would do so in order to drive.
I rotated the lumbar knob to give the seat a bit of "bulge" and the forward lumbar knob to drop the front of the seat down a bit to alleviate the slouch position that is so au courant with the younger generation.
I then buckled the seatbelt. Then I looked at how far my knees where from the dash panels that were so cracked up in the IIS test. At no time(,matter of perception of course) did I feel my knees were too "close" to the lower dash panel.
However I did notice that if one really slouched or allowed the seat to tip down in front, there could be a chance that your knees and legs would plow right into the lower dash. What is the liklihood of that happening? Who knows?
BTW.....I do like this car and sans sunroof, I had enough headroom for my noggin along with the LL Bean hat.
The engine bay however, is another story but that's for a later discussion.
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm
If you have a subscription to the online WSJ, I believe you can also search and find an article or two there. (For those who dont read the WSJ, you'd be surprised just how much auto-industry related news and views can be found.)
~alpha
All in all, the Verona did a lot better then the Leganza and was respectable in its safety. It's just not the safest new car on the road.
You can change the outcome of the tests by making minor changes in the dummy's feet position, let alone be of a different weight and height from the dummy.
A particularly nasty injury people are experiencing is a shattered wrist from having their arm crossed over the air bag at time of impact. Keep your hands away from the center of the wheel and sit back as far as is comfortable to use the controls. This advice will make you far safer than choosing a car based on the unique test procedures we read about.
Thanks, again!
Good Luck Chuck!
I do wish they think something more unique.
I also follow his advice:
"sit back as far as is comfortable to use the controls. This advice will make you far safer than choosing a car based on the unique test procedures we read about."
Ingtonge18, I thought that a 5' 8" 181-lb dummy was used from reading about these tests, though I'm not certain on the height of it, so you are probably correct. If they place the dummy at least 12" away from the airbag, then perhaps they are going for a minimum distance test than an average position. This possibility makes since.
How does the transmission in the Verona perform? The main reason why I don't want a Forenza is due to GM's unattentive torque converter. Does to Verona slip out of overdrive when the throttle is adjusted, and then lock back after a few seconds? I don't know if the Verona uses a GM transmission or not, but this could be a major deciding factor for me in a few years.
The verona tranny takes time to optimize. I have found that in a new car, the trans. actually adjusts based on the driving pattern and driver characteristics and " seems" slow to respond. In fact some have even trashed the trans for being 'confused" etc. Far from the Truth. After its initial break in of say 1000-2000 miles, the trans. performs very well and i have'nt noticed any slippages. On sudden burst of accelaration there is a millisecond delay in response to flooring the pedal but the car responds almost immediately. It may not be a fluid shift like the accord but there is no major shuffle. Once you know how the Car responds, you actually can hit the pedal with less force and there is a fluid shift with no jolt being felt at all. The ride as I said is real smooth even at 70 or 75 mph.
Chrysler was a big proponent of this and its true, the trans has to "learn" how you drive before it can optimize the shift quality and shift points.
~alpha
~alpha