Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Forbes names Top 20 Most Dangerous Cars in America

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 12:48 PM
  #1  
skorpion317's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
Forbes names Top 20 Most Dangerous Cars in America

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/auto...67/detail.html

View the slideshow for the full list.

Seems like everyone got hit in this report - GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 12:56 PM
  #2  
Blown350ZZ4's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 727
From: Alcohaulin Ass
Seems kind of silly to me. Is there a sub-compact that isn't on the list?
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 01:02 PM
  #3  
Threxx's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1998
Posts: 4,320
From: Memphis
This is just pure obvious logic.

The cheapest cars are driven by the youngest people which are the least experienced and typically the most aggressive drivers.

These same cheap cars also tend to be the smallest and lightest vehicles on the road, making them often times on the losing end of crashes with heavier objects.

The cheaper cars also very often don't have nearly the same number of safety features... stability control, side curtain and side impact airbags, electronic brake force distribution... heck some of them still don't even have ABS.

It's really inevitable for the cheapest cars not to be on that list for those three significant reasons.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 01:03 PM
  #4  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Basically don't buy a small car or small SUV with out side airbags.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 01:10 PM
  #5  
mdenz3's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,173
So Mazda truck = death, but Ford Ranger is ok?
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 02:14 PM
  #6  
Aaron91RS's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 162
From: St. Louis, MO
When I think foremost authority on cars, I think forbes.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 02:15 PM
  #7  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
In the slide show it had the Ranger/B series trucks.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 02:53 PM
  #8  
cjmatt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 983
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by Aaron91RS
When I think foremost authority on cars, I think forbes.
haha this is just more crap pushed at the americans by big oil in order to keep them buying gas guzzlers and filling big oils pockets.

of course smaller cars are more dangerous....
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 04:01 PM
  #9  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Interesting that they used the catch-all "SUVs" when what they really are talking about are small SUVs and crossovers.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 04:06 PM
  #10  
HAZ-Matt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,000
From: TX Med Ctr
It seemed like the list was mostly based on lack of side airbags and rollover potential. Kind of stupid, but what can you do.
Old Apr 11, 2008 | 04:19 PM
  #11  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
It seemed like the list was mostly based on lack of side airbags and rollover potential.
I got the same impression. I doubt it was based on any real world data... just speculation based on the fore mentioned.
Old Apr 12, 2008 | 12:35 AM
  #12  
DAKMOR's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,406
From: Philaduhphia
Originally Posted by HAZ-Matt
It seemed like the list was mostly based on lack of side airbags and rollover potential. Kind of stupid, but what can you do.
kind of like how you can get full marks on a certain independant company's safety checklist unless you have stability control.
Old Apr 12, 2008 | 01:20 PM
  #13  
97QuasarBlue3.8's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,018
Originally Posted by Threxx
This is just pure obvious logic.

The cheapest cars are driven by the youngest people which are the least experienced and typically the most aggressive drivers.

These same cheap cars also tend to be the smallest and lightest vehicles on the road, making them often times on the losing end of crashes with heavier objects.

The cheaper cars also very often don't have nearly the same number of safety features... stability control, side curtain and side impact airbags, electronic brake force distribution... heck some of them still don't even have ABS.

It's really inevitable for the cheapest cars not to be on that list for those three significant reasons.
I think you've got the right idea. However, a lot of these vehicles when similarly equipped with safety features of more expensive cars still don't hold up as well. As entry level vehicles, they're just not made that well.

I didn't see a Honda Civic up there, and I'm not surprised. It's a very well made vehicle. Neither is the Corolla. Those are very safe little cars.

I don't wanna rub it in all the naysayers' faces, but Volkswagen didn't make the list. Pure and simple -- they don't cut corners on structural safety. The MKIV Golf (pre 2006) wasn't exactly a good car in a lot of respects for engine problems and Mexican assembly plant issues. But it's a safe car--it was designed by Europeans, made to crash hard on the Autobahn or get hit by a double-decker bus.

My GTI got hit the other day. It was hit by a 2002 Sentra, and both cars did their job in what I consider a low-impact collision. Scuff on my bumper, broken license plate holder on the Sentra. No biggie.

I had the pleasure of driving a 2006 Cobalt for 3 days, and needless to say the difference in build quality between it and my Volkswagen became very clear. For fair comparison, even the VW Rabbit (gay as it is) is a better car at a similar price point ($14k). Aesthetics, fit, finish all aside, I literally felt unsafe in the Cobalt.

The seat is not fully adjustable--putting a bigger driver too close to the dash in a high speed impact (adjusting for steering grip and arm length) or too far removed from the steering wheel (adjust for leg comfort). It didn't help that the steering wheel was non-telescoping.

The door is very close to the driver's side. The seatbelt goes through a loop in the side of the seat and is NOT adjustable, cutting me in the shoulder (clavicle injury, anyone?).

The car also did not have side airbags, ABS, stability control, head curtain airbags or any other modern safety feature other than side airbags. I understand some of those are options, but on a car that floats, rolls, and handles that poorly (LS model) the federal government should require them.

Flame on...I know you hate my honking my horn about expensive, tiny european cars, but I like them for what I think are fairly obvious reason--you have a better chance of surviving if you wreck one.[/B]
Old Apr 12, 2008 | 01:54 PM
  #14  
JakeRobb's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
Why is Pontiac G5 (8th) so much higher on the list than Cobalt (17th)?
Old Apr 12, 2008 | 04:49 PM
  #15  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
Originally Posted by JakeRobb
Why is Pontiac G5 (8th) so much higher on the list than Cobalt (17th)?
My guess is that the G5 is only a coupe and the Cobalt can also be a sedan.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Feffman
Autocross and Road Racing Technique
4
Oct 9, 2015 05:42 AM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 1, 2014 08:08 AM
USAirman93
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
4
Nov 24, 2014 03:37 PM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
0
Nov 23, 2014 10:33 AM
squarehead
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
Nov 21, 2014 08:02 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.