Demographics or Statistics?

10thlmnt · Post by **10thlmnt** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:28 am

Hi guys,

Just wanted to share this bit of e-info when I was reading htrough msn auto... the info pertaining to our cars is further down the page.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx? ... id=4024763

Something for discussion I guess...

Much care,

Frank

lolelectricbluesxt · Post by **lolelectricbluesxt** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:53 am

Yeah. I've pretty much assumed if I get hit from the front, I'm dead.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/safet ... model=Neon

I enjoyed watching the neon crash test. Kinda crazy.

OB · Post by OB » Tue May 15, 2007 4:36 am

that video is tight. haha

kplaya186 · Post by **kplaya186** » Tue May 15, 2007 8:21 am

Well, what do you expect driving on of the cheapeast cars on the road? You pay a lot of money for very safe cars, take a look a Volvo. I feel safe enough to drive in mine, so I could care less.

KrackstaR · Post by **KrackstaR** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:07 am

lolelectricbluesxt wrote:

Yeah. I've pretty much assumed if I get hit from the front, I'm dead.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/safet ... model=Neon

I enjoyed watching the neon crash test. Kinda crazy.

yeah that made me want to remove my dashboard... mehh dashboards are over-rated anyways.

fearingdark · Post by **fearingdark** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:22 am

or get shorter legs...

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:37 am

But you have to remember that is 40mph dead on into a solid, non-movable, blunt wall... which is not a typical crash IMO. Atleast I try to avoid running straight into a wall. Runing into another car head-on whould have different results.

I'll still pick a Neon over any Mazda/Toyota/Honda in crash

Frizbe · Post by **Frizbe** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am

Save the MX-5, I'd leave Mazda out of that list.

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Tue May 15, 2007 10:44 am

A Mazda Protoge (SP) rear ended my 2000 Neon at about 25mph. Totaled the Protoge and sent the driver to the hospital. I drove 25 miles back to my place with a cracked rear bumper and bent exhaust. Real world verses tests. Thats my experiance. But everyone loves to bash the neon.

-Devil- · Post by **-Devil-** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:08 am

hitting a wall at 40mph ... and hitting an oncoming car at 40mph ... you likely will have more damage from hitting the car ... your at 40 .. they are at 30 ... that is equiv to hitting the wall 70 ... yes it is just math .. but i have worked to many accident scenes ... a lot of times hitting a stationary object is better...

Demonik · Post by **Demonik** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:16 am

-Devil- wrote:hitting a wall at 40mph ... and hitting an oncoming car at 40mph ... you likely will have more damage from hitting the car ... your at 40 .. they are at 30 ... that is equiv to hitting the wall 70 ... yes it is just math .. but i have worked to many accident scenes ... a lot of times hitting a stationary object is better...

i know the math adds up, but dont you also have to take into account that the stationary object probably has no give in it at all, when you hit another car not only is your car crumpling but also the other? but im sure it all depends on the mass of the other vehicle...neon vs big truck/suv =

im sure....

either way hitting something just sucks no matter what

03blackrt · Post by **03blackrt** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:34 am

In a car-car collision both cars give alittle and absorb energy. Most cement walls don't give too much. Plus a cement wall transfers most energy in the forwad-backward direction, all focused thru the very front members of the car. Car-car collisions distribute some of the energy in other up-down/left-right directions too. But thats just my observation.

But a properly design crash barrier is a different story.

hansken_yo · Post by **hansken_yo** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:03 pm

I had a much different experience last month than that video shows... I do have so say the other car crumpling up is alot different than a wall... i was doing 30, they were probably doing 20, and I walked away from the accident with bruising.

I also like how they are advertising a 2005 neon while crashing a 2000 model... I think things changed up front to improve front end collisions... maybe... i'm not an expert on this.

Post by **occasional demons** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:34 pm

I remember reading somewhere (one of those gvmt agencies) that neons were number one in crash fatalities. But you have to take into consideration that they are bought as beginner cars for alot of new drivers added to the fact that for most of their production they have the best power for their class. Not always the best combination. If I had one when I was 16 I'd likely be one of those stats.

daaboots · Post by **daaboots** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:05 pm

Well... at least the Neon is better than my last car (91 Ford Festiva)

kornholio788 · Post by **kornholio788** » Tue May 15, 2007 2:09 pm

Bah that will buff out...and if not a little bondo never hurt anyone lol

Mr Josh Zombie · Post by **Mr Josh Zombie** » Tue May 15, 2007 2:09 pm

Festiva FTW!!!

I had a red '92. Greatest little box I ever owned.

OverDrive418 · Post by **OverDrive418** » Tue May 15, 2007 2:47 pm

Frontal crash is one thing, T-boned is another. I have seen a few Neons of different years boned on both sides and well, lets just say they must have poured the occupants out! One looked like it wrapped itself around a tree or phone pole but not split in half...mondo bizzaro!

Frizbe · Post by **Frizbe** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:11 pm

hansken_yo wrote:I had a much different experience last month than that video shows... I do have so say the other car crumpling up is alot different than a wall... i was doing 30, they were probably doing 20, and I walked away from the accident with bruising.

I also like how they are advertising a 2005 neon while crashing a 2000 model... I think things changed up front to improve front end collisions... maybe... i'm not an expert on this.

I believe if it is the same chassis, they don't have to re-test it. Thus, the tests for the '00 models apply to the '05

Oooorrr
More likely I am talking out of my ass and nothing I have said is true.

03sxt · Post by **03sxt** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:11 pm

Who needs their left leg/foot anyways?

anomalous0 · Post by **anomalous0** » Tue May 15, 2007 5:32 pm

You'll notice a trend in the overall fatalities.....the article even points it out: The safest cars are either HUGE SUVs or cars that not only have good safety systems but have some of the best handling available.
I'll bet the lack of a rear swaybar on most stock neons probably has something to do with our bad figures. And our skinny tires. And traction control and ABS being expensive options.

Demonik · Post by **Demonik** » Tue May 15, 2007 7:33 pm

^^ exactly, cant say it much better...the neon is an economical car, meant to get from A to B...just not that safely haha

Wisher2 · Post by **Wisher2** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm

I am, a tow truck driver and I will tell you this. I would much rather be in a honda civic 06 and up than any other car on the planet in a head on collision. We have 2 of them in our yard and one is from a 65mph head on collision. The inside of the vehicle is mint condition. the front end smashed in and bowed out the driver and passanger walked away unscathed

rannox · Post by **rannox** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:58 pm

I remeber my 89 cavalier z24 vs a ford f350 at roughly 15 mph.

Totaled my car, dented his bumper. But somhow the driver of the truck cut his hand pretty bad, dont know on what.

Me and my 400lb friend (who completely fuked my dash with his knees) walked away fine.

Chains broke on the way up to the snow, so i turned around and this happened.

Id hate to see what would of happened if i was driving my normal speed (50-80 on mountain roads).

Dont give fast cars to new drivers!

kc2005ptgt · Post by **kc2005ptgt** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:14 am

Heh, my 87 Nissan Pick Up vs 1990 Ford Tempo =

That Tempo walked away with a dent in the bumper, seriously, and my truck was completely totaled, and the engine was trashed because it shoved it off the mounts and into the firewall cracking it. I was going 35, he was "stopping".

Oh well, I like my neon, and if I wreck it or get wrecked and die, then I guess I was supposed to die in a neon.

OverDrive418 · Post by **OverDrive418** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:19 pm

kc2002acr wrote: I was going 35, he was "stopping".

He friggin stopped alright!

welchspro · Post by **welchspro** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:55 am

I t-boned an 88 accord in my neon at about 30-35 mph. Totaled the accord cuz the whole passenger side collapsed about a foot inward. My car was about 1000 bucks away from being totaled, luckily the air bags did not deploy. I thought my car handled it like a champ. One 03 front clip later, and she was back in business.

Midnight_Rider · Post by **Midnight_Rider** » Sat May 19, 2007 3:45 am

This is the result of a Chevy Astro van broadsiding a 2002 SXT at about 25 MPH. The impact was just before the driver's side rear wheel. The car then spun around on wet pavement, went up on a sidewalk, hit a traffic standard and then hit two small poles filled with concrete before coming to a stop. I had to climb out the passenger-side front door but was completely unharmed. The car was a total loss. I still feel pretty safe in a Neon.

On the other hand, my insurance renewal notice from State Farm came yesterday with this note: "The claim experience on your make and model of vehicle has resulted in an increase to your liability rating group for bodily injury and/or property damage coverages."

anomalous0 · Post by **anomalous0** » Sat May 19, 2007 5:24 am

Don't get me wrong: the neon actually holds up to damage like a champ. I had some guy in a jeep rear-end me a few months ago on an onramp. Blew out his headlight, barely scuffed my rear bumper, after a good wax you have to be right up close to see it.
I'm saying that neons in their stock form don't have the handling to avoid an accident compared to, say, a BMW or a lexus, or even a toyota (newer ones come with big fat tires and ABS).