2011 Ford Fiesta nabs IIHS Top Safety Pick
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
Say what you will, but you can't beat physics.
When that soccer Mom driving that loaded Expedition runs the red light...
When that soccer Mom driving that loaded Expedition runs the red light...
Originally Posted By: Bamaro
......The smaller the entire fleet becomes the safer we all will be.
LOL
......The smaller the entire fleet becomes the safer we all will be.
LOL
I'll take a rust-free new small car over a rusty large car any day. Those "crumple zones" on the large car just moved in a few inches since the underlying structure is not connected well...
Ford's on a roll lately.
Ford's on a roll lately.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Say what you will, but you can't beat physics.
When that soccer Mom driving that loaded Expedition runs the red light...
I'll be very thankful I look both ways before starting off on a green light!
In a 40 mph t-bone from a large SUV, I think you'd be just as dead in your car as a fiesta driver...
Having more mass is nice for some accidents but the extra mass of your car vs. a fiesta might actually allow more interior intrusion. The side impact test uses the same "vehicle" for all cars, which probably my Tracker is the closest real car to it. No car is going to stop a 2 times heavier expedition with its side but a fiesta might start moving along with the expedition before the expeditions bumper is touching your centre counsol....
Say what you will, but you can't beat physics.
When that soccer Mom driving that loaded Expedition runs the red light...
I'll be very thankful I look both ways before starting off on a green light!
In a 40 mph t-bone from a large SUV, I think you'd be just as dead in your car as a fiesta driver...
Having more mass is nice for some accidents but the extra mass of your car vs. a fiesta might actually allow more interior intrusion. The side impact test uses the same "vehicle" for all cars, which probably my Tracker is the closest real car to it. No car is going to stop a 2 times heavier expedition with its side but a fiesta might start moving along with the expedition before the expeditions bumper is touching your centre counsol....
I did not mean to imply that my car was safer than any other, only that mass and speed must be absorbed, and a smaller car can fare poorly.
On the other hand, a 300 is a great car to have a wreck in.
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/attachm...00accident1.jpg
Only a wrist injury!!!
I've also known one who was driven off the road at over 100 mph and rolled multiple times and even end over end. The gentleman also was relatively unhurt.
On the other hand, a 300 is a great car to have a wreck in.
http://www.300cforums.com/forums/attachm...00accident1.jpg
Only a wrist injury!!!
I've also known one who was driven off the road at over 100 mph and rolled multiple times and even end over end. The gentleman also was relatively unhurt.
Wow, that is impressive, any idea what the closing speed was? I guess the 300 also inherited the mercedes level of safety.
But I guess if you think about it almost any new car with a good frontal crash rating should've performed the same. The truck didn't really absorb much energy and wether your car is 4400lbs or 2500lbs, its not going to affect the truck at all.
But I guess if you think about it almost any new car with a good frontal crash rating should've performed the same. The truck didn't really absorb much energy and wether your car is 4400lbs or 2500lbs, its not going to affect the truck at all.
Last edited:
The mazda 2 will probably have similar results. It does not surprise me that more and more small cars can handle a violent crash better than bigger older vehicles. Yes, physics do come into place, but I feel that has more to do with instant deceleration than the structure of the car itself. I know that this is not the fiesta, but here is an old test on the smart car done by fifth gear.
And then there's this eye-opener (not sure if it's been posted here before). A shocking rebuttal of the idea that old body-on-frame cars are safer or more solid than modern unit body cars.
Of course, I'd love to know how the IIHS 1) got it's hands on such a nice Bel Aire in the first place, and 2) made the HORRENDOUS decision to kill it in this fashion. Yes, it confirms what I've suspected for years, but still, even dressed out for the test crash, that was (and I emphasize WAS) a beautiful 1959 Chevy. . .
As a confirmed car lover, I see this test as being almost as immoral as running the test with a live human inside one of the cars.
As a confirmed car lover, I see this test as being almost as immoral as running the test with a live human inside one of the cars.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Of course, I'd love to know how the IIHS 1) got it's hands on such a nice Bel Aire in the first place, and 2) made the HORRENDOUS decision to kill it in this fashion. Yes, it confirms what I've suspected for years, but still, even dressed out for the test crash, that was (and I emphasize WAS) a beautiful 1959 Chevy. . .
As a confirmed car lover, I see this test as being almost as immoral as running the test with a live human inside one of the cars.
I've read several stories that address your questions.
Here's one.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/
Of course, I'd love to know how the IIHS 1) got it's hands on such a nice Bel Aire in the first place, and 2) made the HORRENDOUS decision to kill it in this fashion. Yes, it confirms what I've suspected for years, but still, even dressed out for the test crash, that was (and I emphasize WAS) a beautiful 1959 Chevy. . .
As a confirmed car lover, I see this test as being almost as immoral as running the test with a live human inside one of the cars.
I've read several stories that address your questions.
Here's one.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/more-details-about-1959-bel-air-crash-test/
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
The mazda 2 will probably have similar results. It does not surprise me that more and more small cars can handle a violent crash better than bigger older vehicles. Yes, physics do come into place, but I feel that has more to do with instant deceleration than the structure of the car itself. I know that this is not the fiesta, but here is an old test on the smart car done by fifth gear.
To bad the driver of the Smart would never see how well his car doors work after the wreck....as he would be dead. This video proves nothing.
The IIHS crash test of the Smart showed likely massive injuries to the driver in the 40 mph offset crash test. Small car crumple zones just simply arent as safe as a car with larger crumple zones. A smaller cars crumple zones just cant absorb enough energy to prevent that energy from being transfered to the passengers.
The mazda 2 will probably have similar results. It does not surprise me that more and more small cars can handle a violent crash better than bigger older vehicles. Yes, physics do come into place, but I feel that has more to do with instant deceleration than the structure of the car itself. I know that this is not the fiesta, but here is an old test on the smart car done by fifth gear.
To bad the driver of the Smart would never see how well his car doors work after the wreck....as he would be dead. This video proves nothing.
The IIHS crash test of the Smart showed likely massive injuries to the driver in the 40 mph offset crash test. Small car crumple zones just simply arent as safe as a car with larger crumple zones. A smaller cars crumple zones just cant absorb enough energy to prevent that energy from being transfered to the passengers.
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
And then there's this eye-opener (not sure if it's been posted here before). A shocking rebuttal of the idea that old body-on-frame cars are safer or more solid than modern unit body cars.
I'm curious why they picked a car with an X frame instead of comparing against the much more typical and far more common ladder frame with outside rails.
How much of a difference could that have made.
I do agree with you though, a modern unit body with crumple zones of lets say 3,500 lbs is safer than an old frame car of the same 3,500 weight. Crumple zones DO work, but in a Smart or other sub compact sized car, they are just too small.
And then there's this eye-opener (not sure if it's been posted here before). A shocking rebuttal of the idea that old body-on-frame cars are safer or more solid than modern unit body cars.
I'm curious why they picked a car with an X frame instead of comparing against the much more typical and far more common ladder frame with outside rails.
How much of a difference could that have made.
I do agree with you though, a modern unit body with crumple zones of lets say 3,500 lbs is safer than an old frame car of the same 3,500 weight. Crumple zones DO work, but in a Smart or other sub compact sized car, they are just too small.
the FIESTA is on hold again . Something to do with the drivers seat or other . www.fordtaurus.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=13857 .
According to Mark Fields they are shipping again, and this issue has been resolved.....
"Ford has inspected about 2,300 of the cars and found a problem with the part on just 12 of the vehicles, Ford spokesman Said Deep said. About 4,000 more cars are in line to be inspected.
"We don't believe that, at this point, there are any vehicles in customers' hands that have that issue," Fields said.
"We did find a part-quality issue. We have addressed it, and vehicles are shipping from the plant," Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas told journalists Wednesday.
"Ford has inspected about 2,300 of the cars and found a problem with the part on just 12 of the vehicles, Ford spokesman Said Deep said. About 4,000 more cars are in line to be inspected.
"We don't believe that, at this point, there are any vehicles in customers' hands that have that issue," Fields said.
"We did find a part-quality issue. We have addressed it, and vehicles are shipping from the plant," Mark Fields, Ford's president of the Americas told journalists Wednesday.
- Status
Similar threads
