Topic: That Chinese SUV... Crash videos

[wing]

Eeeek! 
http://www.anwb.nl/published/anwbcms/content/binaire-bestanden/mpg/auto/tests/crashtest-landwind-1-467150.wmv
http://www.anwb.nl/published/anwbcms/content/binaire-bestanden/mpg/auto/tests/crashtest-landwind-2-467165.wmv

[GabL]

That's not good... it looks like the car was made with cardboard... and the dash just come right into the dummy's face... seems like they were not properly bolted in... 

And those people in China DO drive fast!!

[Snowman]

Ya get what ya pay for…

[si]

at least it isn't as bad as the Chevy Astro


Ideally, the passenger body cage should remain intact

[a4_tom]

Chinese carmakers are responsible for their population control after birth control failed.

[Wetson]

OMG.  That's horrid!  I wouldn't want to be in that one.  The dash board coming loose is a one way ticket to a smashed in face and a broken neck... air bag or not. 

[ovr50]

That Astro van looks pretty lethel to me. A friend of mine had a Safari van (same $hit, different pile) and I rode with her one time - I spent most of the time thinking about what might happen to the front end of that Safari if we met an immovable object. It seemed to me we were sitting right on the road. Glad I didn't see that picture first. 

[nm]

looks like it did just as well as the car it really is before the chinese bought the tooling and rebadged it:

Isuzu Rodeo:

[jeeper]

thats something i wouldnt want to be driving....whats that? a plastic SUV??

[barrie1]

The Astro picture is a totally different design not that its any better but the Chinese vehicle with a front end and rear wheel drive like that should do much better then what happened there. For a unit with a full frame that is very sad to see. 

[safristi]

...SHOOT...".Buffalo Jump head smashed in" Park has nuffin' on dem guys....hell Las could build a stronger model out of balsa wood and sniffin' dope.....hey easy on the name-callin' there....It's Dr's orders fer ma out a body experiences..

[ShadowDog]

...but at a lousy 64 km/h ?

Damage like that is hard to compare to another vehicle when it's so slow a speed.

[si]

...but at a lousy 64 km/h ?

Damage like that is hard to compare to another vehicle when it's so slow a speed.

Crash tests are as good as it gets for comparing vehicles because they do what any good experiment does; only test one variable (the car) while keeping everything else in the impact a constant.

a lousy 64 km/h may be a little slow when comparing forces on a highway head on collision, but I think it does represent a good evaluation of what would happen if you slid off a highway and hit a stationary object.  Most drivers will have braked before impact lowering the speed to something as lousy as 64 km/h.

[auto_enthusiast]

Nothing too surprising - I'll bet a quite a few cars designed in the 80's would fare very similarly in this sort of crash test.  Over the years, the crush structure of cars has gotten stronger and the crash tests have gotten more severe (ex: offset testing).  For a vehicle designed so long ago, you can bet it's going to fail modern crash tests.

[Scaerio]

Nothing too surprising - I'll bet a quite a few cars designed in the 80's would fare very similarly in this sort of crash test.  Over the years, the crush structure of cars has gotten stronger and the crash tests have gotten more severe (ex: offset testing).  For a vehicle designed so long ago, you can bet it's going to fail modern crash tests.

Very good point.  The Astro design is from 1984 I think.  THe Rodeo is very early 1990s.  If I recall correctly, it's only recently that trucks and truck-based SUVs have had to comply with the higher crash protection standards demanded of cars, due to their increasing popualrity and role as family/passenger haulers, as opposed to cargo vehicles.

[ovr50]

Meanwhile a bunch of the older designed Astros, Safaris, Rodeos, etal are still out and, because of their age and low value, are coming into the hands of ppl who have little money for maintenance and could be more inclined to drive impaired, thus the lethal killing power of those older vehicles will be felt more. This particularily true in the US, perhaps more than in Canada where smaller old junkers are favored. What can be done about this? Likely nothing.

That's my do-gooder post for the day. I'm off duty now. 

[Scaerio]

Fifth Gear did a really freaky test when they crash tested 1995-96 Renault Espace minivan against a 2003-04 one, to show how much crash protection technology has changed over 8-9 years.  Tt was frightening.  The new model pretty much ripped into the older one in an off-set driver's side crash, and sustained surprisingly little damage - the seatbelt pretensioners fired, but the airbags didn't as the new model didn't feel the impact was severe enough - the pretensioned seatbelts held everyone so securely in place, there was no need for airbags.  The older van was a complete mess; the drivers legs would have been severed, and he would have bled out before help could have arrived.

Scary stuff.  Makes one even think twice about buying a classic 50s or 60s car for weekend fun... 

[barrie1]

If you were to look at the weight of the cars from the 50's and 60's I think you will find that the metal was a lot thicker then the cars of to-day. The designs are much different now and so are the materials. A lot of plastic is used in these cars now. I have been under my old 1972 truck lots of times and also under a newer one as well. There is quite a difference in the metal thickness and I beleive the quality of the build as well. I prefer the older vehicles much more so then the newer ones in this respect. 

[si]

If you were to look at the weight of the cars from the 50's and 60's I think you will find that the metal was a lot thicker then the cars of to-day...  I prefer the older vehicles much more so then the newer ones in this respect. 

Okay, if we all had to be human crash test subjects and perform the same offset crash test, I would take something like the new Acura RL or Merc S class or Lexus LS or ...  Enjoy your 50 year old cart Barrie.

[ovr50]

There is no question that the newer vehicles, comparing within the same class of vehicle, are way safer today and do far more to protect the occupants. It's not always the thickness or rigidity of the structure; rather it is how the vehicle absorbs an impact and sucks up the energy in crumple zones before that energy gets to the human bodies. When it comes to safety, I would take today's vehicles any time in the great majority of accidents.

It's akin to bridge building - older bridges tend to be very heavy and full of steel; modern bridges are lighter but designed to carry the stresses better.