SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't give as much credence to the U.S. Government's crash tests as I do to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Consumer Reports takes the same view), so I was disappointed (although not that surprised) to see the latest crash tests for mid-sized SUVs. :(

I really like my 9-7X, but I also understand and accept that it's based on the Trailblazer. Even with all of the improvements made when the 9-7X was designed, it's still a Trailblazer at heart.

Some excerpts from the news release (http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr101107.html):

"Among the worst performers in the side test are the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chevrolet TrailBlazer, even though both are equipped with standard side airbags."

"Based on overall results of front, side, and rear tests, the TrailBlazer is the lowest rated current model midsize SUV tested by the Institute."

“Nearly every car with side airbags has both head and torso airbags, but the Grand Cherokee and TrailBlazer have head protection only,” .... “Head protection is rated good in both vehicles, but the lack of chest protection and weak side structures that allowed a lot of intrusion contributed to high forces on the driver dummies’ chests and abdomens.”

“If you’re in the market for a midsize SUV, there’s no reason to buy one with mediocre crash test ratings..."

Frontal crash test is rated "acceptable".

Side crash test is rated "marginal".

Rear crash test is rated "poor".

The full test results:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=619
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
Mister Mark said:
I don't give as much credence to the U.S. Government's crash tests as I do to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (Consumer Reports takes the same view), so I was disappointed (although not that surprised) to see the latest crash tests for mid-sized SUVs. :(

I really like my 9-7X, but I also understand and accept that it's based on the Trailblazer. Even with all of the improvements made when the 9-7X was designed, it's still a Trailblazer at heart.

Some excerpts from the news release (http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr101107.html):

"Among the worst performers in the side test are the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Chevrolet TrailBlazer, even though both are equipped with standard side airbags."

"Based on overall results of front, side, and rear tests, the TrailBlazer is the lowest rated current model midsize SUV tested by the Institute."

“Nearly every car with side airbags has both head and torso airbags, but the Grand Cherokee and TrailBlazer have head protection only,” .... “Head protection is rated good in both vehicles, but the lack of chest protection and weak side structures that allowed a lot of intrusion contributed to high forces on the driver dummies’ chests and abdomens.”

“If you’re in the market for a midsize SUV, there’s no reason to buy one with mediocre crash test ratings..."

Frontal crash test is rated "acceptable".

Side crash test is rated "marginal".

Rear crash test is rated "poor".

The full test results:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=619
Interesting that they did not metion the GMC Envoy, the Buick Rainer, which of all the variants on the GMT 360 chassis is the nearest to the SAAB. I really don't put much importance to crash test results when I purchase a car. The worst accident I've ever had was in a 67 VW Bug, rolled and totaled it and noone was hurt. Had a 1990 780 Volvo Bertone Coupe totaled in a 6 car pile up and walked away OK. I guess when my time comes, if driving a car or flying, or making love (my choice) it will be time, and safety ratings will be damned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,173 Posts
Abarth said:
I really don't put much importance to crash test results when I purchase a car.
Interestingly enough many people do and so crash testing and safety ratings are a huge marketing bonus. Also unfortunate for Saab, the brand was always know to be an innovator of safety (moose proof windshields, seat belts, auto tensioners, head rests, etc.). Having a vehicle in it's line up that has bad safety ratings will further black mark the brand. Wish GM would get smart with the Saab brand!!
Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
I don't think SAAB/GM was ever very serious about the 97-X anyways. While I think it is pretty and like it overall, it sort of reminds me of school...where some people would take someone else's paper which was mediocre in the first place, tweak it a bit, add a few different citations and call it a new report.

I wonder why they didn't base it off the Cadillac SRX? I think that would be more true to the SAAB, since the SRX is much more nimble, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,127 Posts
Let's hope in a few years they have a replacement - I am neutral on the 9-7x - seems to be a decent rig - most suv's aren't exactly safe to begin with - worst among the worst maybe - plus some of the SRX were 75k or so - I wouldnt be too happy paying 75k and then having another brand with the same style for 45k - it was probably cheaper to do trailblazer and fit their marketing mindset better - whatever that may be - Saab needs it's own unique SUV - I have never been a fan of cross brand sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
What's the difference between the IIHS and NHTSA:s NCAP, where the 9-7x got a five-star side crash rating for both front and back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Butters said:
What's the difference between the IIHS and NHTSA:s NCAP, where the 9-7x got a five-star side crash rating for both front and back?
Well if I were a cynic I'd say that since NHTSA is a government body they're more likely to skew towards the manufacturer and not find problems. Since the IIHS is an insurance industry funded group they'd probably skew more towards finding problems because that's one way your insurance charges are figured.

Of course the truth is probably a little of everything and is somewhere in between. Also remember usually they don't crash more than one vehicle (a statistician's nightmare), plus there are probably differences in the tests. You also have to realize that each accident is different and a vehicle that passes all test with flying colors might get hit at an angle that wasn't tested and result in everyone dying, it doesn't mean it was a bad car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,137 Posts
I dont think a lot of people care about crash safety too too much, look at the Isuzu Rodeo Crash tests, and the old GM minivan platform test.. what was it? The Chevy venture. Both very poor.

But personally, Crash safety is of the most importance to me.

Seriously.. who buys a minivan that does this at 35 MPH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k01OWycYTig

Nickshu said:
Agreed....A V6 is not a REAL Saab. Should always be a Turbo 4. The V6 totally goes against the Ecopower concept that has made Saab great. Hell we were getting 260HP and 258ft lbs torque out of the 2.3L Turbo, why can't we even get that from a V6?
Yea if people here are tuning 2.3L's to 400 BHP it cant be too hard to make an I4 reliably be able to put out that much from the factory... then advertise, the power of a V8 when u need it, the efficiency of a 4 cyl when your cruising.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
TO be fair the GM900 did poorly in frontal crash test ratings too by the IIHS.


That said, Saabs have the lowest Injury/Fatality rates of nearly any automobile maker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
One of the reasons I bought the 9-7x for my wife back in 2005 was that the 9-7x was one of the first SUV's that had the anti-rollover stability control. My wife swerves to miss dead squirrels, but likes sitting higher which the 9-7x offers.

Is it the safest vehicle on the road? Not sure, could they make cars better, safer, sure, but it's all give and take. Fact is, if you hit a dumptruck, you're probably going to get hurt. But in muli-vehicle accidents, usually the vehicle with more mass will make out a little better, laws of physics there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
The Alchemist said:
One of the reasons I bought the 9-7x for my wife back in 2005 was that the 9-7x was one of the first SUV's that had the anti-rollover stability control. My wife swerves to miss dead squirrels, but likes sitting higher which the 9-7x offers.

Is it the safest vehicle on the road? Not sure, could they make cars better, safer, sure, but it's all give and take. Fact is, if you hit a dumptruck, you're probably going to get hurt. But in muli-vehicle accidents, usually the vehicle with more mass will make out a little better, laws of physics there.
Not always.

Your point is valid; however, injury to the car vs. injury to the passenger. Body on frame does not hold up as well vs. unitized structures designed with crumple zones to limit direct and dangerous forces to the passengers.

I would rather be in an accident in a Saab 9-5/900/9000/99 than a Dodge Durango or Trailblazer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
woywitka said:
I would rather be in an accident in a Saab 9-5/900/9000/99 than a Dodge Durango or Trailblazer.

Oh, come on.....:lol:

A 99 or early 900 with no airbags vs. a 6,000 lb truck with front airbags and side curtain airbags?

I think if you wanted to argue the point of greater accident avoidance in a more nimble car you might have more of a leg to stand on....

The safety gap between SUVs and cars has dropped steadily since the early 2000s, when the higher rollover rates of SUVs made them more dangerous than cars when you compared death rates in single-vehicle accidents. (Read "High and Mighty" by Keith Bradsher for some solid reporting on the issue.) Since then, advances in stability control have made SUVs less rollover prone...and they still fare better against cars in multivehicle accidents.

...but this advantage is negated in places when you're more likely to hit another SUV instead of a lighter car. (NEw Jersey has something crazy like one in every five or six vehicles is an SUV...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,173 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
RBatsch said:
I'm not so sure that size, weight, or air bags can compensate for bad design. There's the old Mini vs. Ford 150 story:

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/

Or the Smart vs. the big Merc:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/684541/mercedes_s_and_smart_crash_test/

With the exception of the little Smart rolling over, it faired very well.
Robert
;)

The IIHS tells the full story. Accident Injury and Survival rates are what I would make my choice on over what the car company claims about safety!

That said, even the GM900 did "poorly" in frontal crash test; however, the Injury/Survival rates are outstading.

Do Saabers crash different too?:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,035 Posts
mike saunders said:
...but this advantage is negated in places when you're more likely to hit another SUV instead of a lighter car. (NEw Jersey has something crazy like one in every five or six vehicles is an SUV...)
Taking important facts like this into account is what can hurt the IIHS reports.

DO some people crash different in some cars too?

How many Covettes are going the speed limit when they have a fatal crash?

I see about a Saab a month that is not being driven by an old person going 10 below:lol: .

Is a "crash" a crash to the IIHS. FIrefighters arrive and the guy who crashed his Saab into the ditch becuase he fell asleep is fine.

Then the Corvette going 170mph flips and hits a a tree 4km off the side of the highway is dead. Are these both not crashes?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
RBatsch said:
I'm not so sure that size, weight, or air bags can compensate for bad design. There's the old Mini vs. Ford 150 story:

http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/

Or the Smart vs. the big Merc:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/684541/mercedes_s_and_smart_crash_test/

With the exception of the little Smart rolling over, it faired very well.
Robert
I've had that awesome Mini/F150 test bookmarked for a while. :) I'm sure that's what drove Ford to radically redisign the front end of the F150 in 2001 or 2002. :lol:

In most of the testing, the bigger vehicles fared really poorly against the immovable concrete barrier, which is what you'd tend to see in a single-vehicle accident, but tend to do well in vehicle to vehicle offset or head-on tests...which mirrors the differences in injury rates in accidents involving big cars vs. little ones.

But like most folks, I'd rather be in a large sedan like a 9-5 or a 9000 than in a small car...or an SUV. :cool: That way you get the best of both worlds...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,576 Posts
woywitka said:
;)

That said, even the GM900 did "poorly" in frontal crash test; however, the Injury/Survival rates are outstading.
This is a good reminder that the laboratory controlled tests may be good base-lines; but, only field results have real meaning. Saab do a lot of retrospective assessment of crash data from real world situations and then feed that into their design.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top