Date:         Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:46:20 -0600
Reply-To:     Andrew Fox <afox@CNR.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Fox <afox@CNR.COLOSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Car Talk Vanagon caller
Comments: To: Larry Petty <lpetty@teltronics.com>
In-Reply-To:  <E8FD80178BCDB444A1159A1B9AF86280027D2D24@srqech01.teltronics.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

> Funny, except that the boys indicated that the Vanagon wasn't very safe
> and was worth "not a cent"   I sent them an email on the safety rating
> of the Vanagon and the small but highly active resale market for these

According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration the
Vanagon rates lowest (1 point) on a 4 point scale for Frontal Impact
Safety, refernece: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/archive/crash.htm

I think that many assume that the Vanagon is very safe because of the
famous Swedish insurance company head on crash test:
http://www.251.org/volvocrash.html.  I think it is clear from the photos
of that crash test that the vanagon suffered less frontal damage because
it rode up over the hood of the Volvo.  This is likely because the
vangagon has more ground clearance in the front than the volvo.
Obviously, this "ride on top" effect may not always happen in all
collisions.  It is clear from looking at the front of a Vanagon that there
is a very minimal crumple zone protecting the front seat passengers.
Also note that the Swedish insurance company's safety ratings are probably
based on comparisons with other Swedish vehicles and U.S. standards are
probably different.