Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:06:28 -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 -- Re: Near
DeathExperience in th...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I have to side with Robert on this one--the Vanagon may not have the most nimble handling and stopping capabilities, but even its predecessor was a pretty good vehicle in a crash. I was once driving in Colorado, 10 mph or so on black ice. I was in a 1976 Dodge club cab truck. Heavy metal. The guy in front of me lost it, and I put it in the snow bank to stop. He bailed, my back end swung ever so slowly into the freeway. Behind me, Joe Hippy the Moron is coming at 70mph in a 74ish microbus. He t-bones me right on the door--glass everywhere, and he moves the passenger door 19 (yes, 19) inches into the cab. Lucky I didn't have a passenger that night. He wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He was fortunate to submarine under the dash--cut both thighs pretty good, and hit his face on the steering wheel. Very minor injuries for such a terrible crash.
I am of the opinion that the Germans have engineered quite a bit of safety into the Vanagon. It's true that an SUV poses a bad threat. One of the main reasons for this (especially from the sedan driver's perspective) is that they have high bumpers. Since they are classified as a light truck, they don't have to meet the same safety and mileage specs as other vehicles. So get on your senators and ask for a change to regulations that mandates uniform bumper heights for ALL vehicles. Ever seen what a sedan looks like after it goes under a 48" truck deck? And be happy that your bumper is nice and low, and will be forgiving to the unfortunate Neon <g> in your way.....
bmc :)
>>> Robert Keezer <WarmerWagen@AOL.COM> 10/18/01 12:27PM >>>
If I may add a few thoughts here-
a solid concrete barrier or anything heavy, bigger and or unmovable is very
unforgiving to a Vanagon.
However, hitting another vehicle such as the Volvo, or in my case, a 1992
Pontiac Grand Am, is another story.
You are familiar with the Volvo -Vanagon crash test. My own personal test was
really a five car pile-up in 1996 and I had no way out but to hit the
farthest vehicle from me--the Grand AM.
By the time I hit I may have been going 35, skidding 100 feet -knocking the
Pontiac 20 feet away from me. The rear of the car was crunched flush with the
bottom rear window.
My Vanagon was punched in around the right headlight .
No frame or suspension damage-I drove away-the Grand Am was totaled.
I have seen other cars-anything larger usually gets the upper hand. Hitting
the unmovable or that moving toward your front is the most unforgiving.
The Accord that rear ended the Grand Cherokee was totalled-the Cherokee
barely damaged.
All the sedans in the 5 car pile up were totalled-ecept the Jeep and the
Vanagon-from a personal perspective.( Sure, the insurance company would have
totaled my Westy, but since I didn't have the full coverage I though I had, I
paid out of pocket to have it fixed.)
My point is you are safer in a Vanagon from most other areas of the vehicle
from impact to sides and rear-and, not being very collapsible, the car
vehicle that hits these areas fares badly. I have seen many vanagons that
were wrecked-hitting a pole dead center is the worst I have seen.
The others all look like minor injuries or none.
Vehicles like sedans don't want to be hit by the battering ram Vanagon. Even
your SUV's don't have the crash rail that a Vanagon has. Their higher center
of gravity makes them roll when hit by another vehicle-but they are
heavy-avoid hitting one.
And please don't try my test crash.
Double the minimum distance between yourself and the car ahead as much as
possible-and, if you can't help it, like in stop and go, then only behind a
smaller vehicle. (Sorry, sedans)
Robert
1982 Westfalia
| 
