by "E92M3" (E46M3)
Published 10/08/2017 at 00:14
by "E92M3" (E46M3)
Published 10/08/2017 at 00:14
No Tags
STARS: 3
Watch till the end.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"wafflesnfalafel" (wafflesnfalafel1)
10/08/2017 at 00:18, STARS: 6
I think I would like to keep both feet thank you....
"scoob" (scoobsti)
10/08/2017 at 00:30, STARS: 1
nope.avi
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 00:34, STARS: 0
Only Fiat chrysler would still be using a almost 2 decade old platform that EATS YOUR FEET IN A SMALL OVERLAP. yeah no...
"PS9" (PS9)
10/08/2017 at 00:43, STARS: 1
ZL1 it is, then.
"E92M3" (E46M3)
10/08/2017 at 00:54, STARS: 1
Just imagine if it was another car traveling 35 mph in the opposite direction.
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 01:03, STARS: 1
Pretty much every car failed this test when they started doing it. The Challenger is old and hasn’t been updated since then, so it definitely falls into that category. But it’s far from the only car that doesn’t hold up in this test.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
10/08/2017 at 01:03, STARS: 0
Holy shit. I’m fairly sure my 10 year older car does better than that.
"Flynorcal: pilot, offshore sailor, car racer and panty thief" (flynorcal)
10/08/2017 at 01:05, STARS: 0
Starred because you’re correct.
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 01:16, STARS: 0
I just find it amazing that I can put up to 115k of my USD TODAY on a vehicle that will eat my leg in the event of a crash.
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 01:27, STARS: 0
What Challenger costs $115k? A Demon? That’s a $85k car.
The 2016 BMW 3 Series also scored Marginal in the small overlap test.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 01:35, STARS: 1
Currently dealer markup on demon allocations can be that high.
And again you don’t expect to buy a full sized vehicle these days with prices like the BMW and challengers and get literally a death trap.
I’m safer in a smart car than I am in a challenger. Thats obviously not how it’s supposed to be.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/08/2017 at 01:37, STARS: 2
Ahh, they just had to wreck a plum crazy one. :(
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 01:37, STARS: 0
How they got around dodges allocation plan
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autoblog.com/amp/2017/07/24/dodge-demon-dealer-markup-msrp/
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 01:50, STARS: 0
I don’t care about markup, that’s what dealers are asking. Nobody has to pay that much and not everyone does. The car costs $85k., its market value may be higher but that doesn’t change the cost of the car from the manufacturer.
The small overlap test showed the weaknesses in modern cars’ safety structures. They’re built to pass the tests, and there is usually no crash structure along the outside of a cars frame rails. But the idea that a Smart car is safer is absurd. Bouncing off the barrier is not any better than glancing off it. They are safe relative to their size, but there’s simply less car to absorb an impact. They rely on the crumple zones of other cars to help them. So if you hit something immovable, you’re screwed.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 02:03, STARS: 1
First off I wrote “up too 115k $” which imo can include the maximum someone, actually anyone can pay for a single model. It’s market value is relevant.
Now the idea I’m backing not only suggests that when you buy a bigger fullsized vehicle your safer but also that when you spend more money on a vehicle it should have more Saftey features. When you buy a challenger for the price of an sclass your in way more danger in the dodge. The fact that any manufacturer is looking for passing poor performance in any crash text is absurd. Not only dodge. That BMW is atrocious. The smart cars is safer proportionally to the challenger in both price and size, plus you chose a second gen smart, the new 3rd gen is quite a bit better at crashes.
Overall I hope you understand I’m not saying it’s an issue of anything other than dodge and other manufacturers putting others at risk by not building their vehicles up to a reasonable standard for crash Saftey.
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 02:29, STARS: 0
What? The Dodge Challenger starts at $27k everything else is an option that has nothing to do with the structure of the car. Safety is not a luxury, and while larger vehicles are safer all else being equal, you can still make a small car safer than an older small car. They will just get heavier and more expensive.
The fact is, when the Challenger was designed, the small overlap crash test didn’t exist and so Dodge (and others) didn’t design for it. And so Dodge and others failed it.
Here’s another crash comparison between similar, modern electric cars: the BMW i3 vs Chevy Bolt. One is much more expensive than the other. One has a carbon body. One got IIHS Top Safety marks.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
"JeepJeremy" (jeepjeremy)
10/08/2017 at 02:49, STARS: 1
I wanted to mention that too! What a shame!!
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 03:11, STARS: 0
Honestly I don’t know where this discussion is going anymore sorry. It started with a FCA joke I don’t even know where we are anymore. Dodge shouldn’t produce a car that’s danger in a test that didn’t exist when it was designed. If it cant pass or is dangerous than I wouldn’t hope for anyone to produce it.
Honestly the price and size things at this moment weren’t even my point. It was literally an FCA joke taken too seriously and I got pulled in lol
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 03:55, STARS: 0
Well I don’t really know what your point is. The Dodge performs poorly in a test that it was not designed to pass. Why would it be expected to? A lot of cars failed that test, many of which were newer and more expensive. Why should they stop building them just because some particular weakness was discovered? When the Challenger gets redesigned (sometime in the next 20 years hopefully) it will definitely be designed to pass this test. If you look deeper into the test results, you’ll find that it was only that one area that the Challenger was really likely to cause an injury. It’s not a dangerous car by any means, and if a Smart had a head on collision with one, the Challenger would come out far better.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/dodge/challenger-2-door-coupe
"Tohru" (tohrurokuno)
10/08/2017 at 04:05, STARS: 2
I mean, I drive a 23 year old car with door-mounted seatbelts.
In a small-offset impact it’ll just tear off the fender, front suspension, and the door. So I’ll be dead.
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 05:29, STARS: 0
It’s become obvious to me that we agree and at the same time don’t relize it. The only thing I disagree with is producing a vehicle likely to harm someone in a serious manner like shown, yeah it wasn’t mean to pass the test. That doesn’t mean you continue building it for years later on a 2 decade old platform. If dodge wanted to have a safe vehicle they would’ve redesigned it, Especially since the Challenger is way over it’s lifespan. I think that was my only different position. Sorry it got all confusing and shit
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 05:31, STARS: 0
The point of these things is that this car is still being produced. My car your car are miles behind on crash Saftey but I stand firm that a car should be able to do well within it’s model years. If not your putting your customers at risk. I’m not expecting a 72 year old car to do well. I’m expecting a week old car to do well, a car build 7 months ago a car still on dealership lots with 10 miles.
"KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs" (kusabisensei)
10/08/2017 at 07:52, STARS: 1
Do remember that IIHS has only been doing small overlap for a few years at most. This was because the engineers were getting good at passing the head on test and the offset head on test, and the IIHS needed another way to say “There are unsafe cars, we need to raise rates for insurance.” (Also remember that they are the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety).
Pretty much everyone failed when they went to this 10% small overlap test. Now the engineers at most companies have had a redesign to do better in that test.
Fiat Chrysler is not most companies.
"LiterallyStuckIn1987" (mytimemachineisbroken)
10/08/2017 at 08:05, STARS: 0
Still safer than the K-Cars they’re making this year.
What’s this ‘2016 Challenger’ anyway? It looks like a badly done restomod.
"shop-teacher" (shop-teacher)
10/08/2017 at 08:22, STARS: 0
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no FCA fan, but over time lots of companies have kept platforms around for 20+ years.
"Captain of the Enterprise" (justanotherdayinparadise)
10/08/2017 at 09:22, STARS: 1
And I no longer want a Challenger
"2Fast2Furious: Rotary Powered" (2fast2furiousfc3s)
10/08/2017 at 11:24, STARS: 0
I mean it used to be common. But the difference is that the Challenger isn’t even on a good safe platform, just because you can doesn’t mean you should I’m. I could be wrong
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/08/2017 at 17:18, STARS: 0
“So if you hit something immovable, you’re screwed.”
Fifth Gear slammed a first generation into a concrete barrier at 70mph, it came out extremely better than any car made in 1998 should have.
Your test video - while crazy frightening - involves a second generation smart, which being released in 2007 means it isn’t built to pass a small overlap crash test. The only thing that held back a second gen smart from an IIHS Top Safety Pick is not having adjustable headrests. I reckon the sled also weighs more than the car too. Indeed, I shouldn’t find myself trying to fight a Ford F-150, but I should be fine otherwise. :)
The 453 is much stronger and does better in crash tests...though it falls short of a Top Safety Pick for the same reason, plus a lack of rating for small overlap. Sadly, it too was engineered right before those tests became a thing.
Just some smart factoid, I have no opinion in the conversation you two are having. xD
"CRider" (crider)
10/08/2017 at 18:33, STARS: 0
While the Smart performs admirably in crash tests, tests that put the Smart into a wall are only really showing what would happen in a head on collision with another Smart (or similar sized car). From IIHS,
“Frontal crash test results can’t be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes. That’s because the kinetic energy involved in the moderate overlap and small overlap frontal tests depends on the speed and weight of the test vehicle. Thus, the crash is more severe for heavier vehicles.
Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes. In 2009, IIHS demonstrated this principle with a series of tests in which small cars were crashed into larger cars, all of which had good frontal ratings in the moderate overlap test.”
A bigger car or truck would knock a Smart out of the way like a cat swatting at a fly.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/08/2017 at 19:03, STARS: 0
“A bigger car or truck would knock a Smart out of the way like a cat swatting at a fly.”
I know, I literally mentioned that in my comment.
“Indeed, I shouldn’t find myself trying to fight a Ford F-150, but I should be fine otherwise. :)”
I was just shooting off smart factoids. lol I said, I have no horse in your debate lol.
I was also correcting the assertion that hitting something immovable (like a concrete barrier) screws you.
Us smart owners have had some interesting crashes. My favourite is a pair of Europeans in a first gen that rolled off a mountain falling 500m. The occupants crawled out with only scratches.
These cars hold up crazy well against static objects like that.
The worst crashes (and the vast majority of all fatal crashes) tend to involve large vehicles like work vans or trucks. That’s expected, you can’t beat physics.
The rest seem to involve convertibles. The safety highly relies on the high tensile steel cage...something that does not exist in the convertibles. The locking bars for the convertible roof are plastic and do nothing for safety.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
10/15/2017 at 01:25, STARS: 0
Among the cars that initially did not do well in this test:
BMW 5 Series (F10)
And various others that have a reputation of being “safe.”
It’s simply a matter of whether the car was designed before this test was devised.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
10/15/2017 at 01:26, STARS: 0
In that case, $300k exotic cars will amaze you even further.
In fact, there’s no way IIHS will test a Rolls Royce, so for all I know the Phantom could also maim you in a small-overlap crash, despite weighing 6000 lbs.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
10/15/2017 at 01:27, STARS: 0
So did the F10 5 series when they first tested it in 2013.