Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:09:14 -0600
Reply-To: Ben McCafferty <bmccafferty@VOLERA.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Ben McCafferty <bmccafferty@VOLERA.COM>
Subject: Re: Vanagon Crash Test Ratings Not So Good --
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Amen, Joel!
I bet Vanagon drivers are some of the most laid back on the road. We're not usually the dot-commers in BMWs racing each other in and out of traffic on 101 at 100 mph. At least not until we have Tiico conversions.. :)
bmc :)
>>> Joel Walker <jwalker17@EARTHLINK.NET> 10/18/01 12:39PM >>>
> According to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
> (NHTSA), the DRIVER of the Vanagon has a greater than 45% chance of
> sustaining life-threatening injuries from a frontal collision (a
> single-star, "POOR" rating). This test is performed by driving
dummies head
> on into a concrete barrier at 35 mph.
> By contrast, the same (frontal) collision in an '87 Volvo 740 is
rated at
> "EXCELLENT", five stars, a 10% chance of life-threatening injury for
the
> driver.
> And then, on the other hand, you get written testimonials like Adam
Brooks'.
> So what's the deal here, people? Are Vanagons as bad as their crash
test
> ratings say they are? Thoughts anyone???
well ... you can believe the NHTSA if you want to.
my insurance company is USAA ... which, i believe, is a pretty good
one. and they give me a 'safe car discount' on my 88 bus and my 91
bus. (oddly enough, they do NOT give it to me for my 87 camper. go
figure). now, my guess is that their discounts are based on the
numbers of those years that have had low accident rates or low-cost
accidents and/or low medical costs from any accidents. but then, why
don't they use the NHTSA figures and charge me more?
from what i've seen, based on old figures from Consumer Reports, the
Vanagon is rated way lower than the Chevy Astro. we have an Astro at
work, and i hate to drive the thing ... there is no way it is safer
than my Vanagon ... if you have a frontal crash in that thing, you're
gonna break at least both ankles .. the wheelwell intrudes so much
into the driver's leg area. and from what i've seen, the frame isn't
very substantial at all.
but it all comes back down to the driver. a vw beetle is, by today's
standards, NOT a safe car. yet people all over the world drove them
for years and years, and it never got the reputation of an 'unsafe
car' (unless you believe what Ralph Nader says. and if you will check
up on the sources of his data for the book "Unsafe at any Speed", as
Road & Track magazine did, you might be surprised to find out that he
fudged a lot of the data so it showed what he wanted it to show!!) ...
whereas the Ford Pinto wasn't out that long at all, and look at it's
reputation. same thing with the Chevy Corvair. and it wasn't just the
axles ... the Mercedes SL280 had the same axle setup, as did the
Beetle and Porsches of the day, and they didn't get the reputation.
;)
to me, what this shows is that 'reputation' is based on magazines and
newspapers, not on fact or driving experience. and any driver who
fails to learn the ins and outs of her/his particular vehicle is
asking for trouble. you have GOT to learn to drive the beast the way
IT is safest ... you can't drive a Jeep the same way you drive a
Corvette, and you can't drive a Vanagon the same way you drive a Jeep
(or anything else). :)
are they safe? kinda depends on you, doesn't it. :)
unca joel
|