I don't doubt which might be safer...StarbucksSam said:
Don't know, I've seen small car vs. SUV crashes where the small car occupants walk away and the SUV driver dies.StarbucksSam said:
Another way to look at it is that the Mini would be much more likely to be able to avoid a crash, what with the handling and low center of gravity. But overall their low height and mass make them more risky than most cars on the road. As usual, it would depend much more on driver error and your familiarity with the vehicle than which car you're in.StarbucksSam said:
There was a nasty fatality here in Washington State last year (I think) where a young girl was driving her parents Suburban (?). Friends were passengers and due to bad weather/road conditions (?) the SUV went off the road and flipped over, crushing the canopy. I believe the driver was killed and the other passengers were badly injured.StarbucksSam said:
This is very true, although also remember that in general, the way most automotive barrier collision tests work, you are in essence testing a car's performance in a collision where it hits another car of equal weight. So equivalent performance in terms of stars or crash statistics by two cars of radically different weights is not very comparable.cheekyspanky said:Seems that it's quite variable as to how well you are protected - check out the ratings before you buy a car!
It's more to do with testing the front of cars to see which bits will damage a person more than necessary - on older cars the window wipers are often exposed, but on newer ones they are almost always tucked under the bonnet/hood - because when you hit a person they can be sliced by them apparantly.Dr. Dastardly said:Whats a pedestrian rating? Is that the rating on the guy that was walking down the street that you just creamed?
The new Golf (Mk V) was released here in the UK last year, I think sometime around March 2004. My dad bought one in August..the exact same one they use in the crash test..mkrishnan said:Cheekyspanky, that's the VW Golf you linked too off the *old* platform, correct, and not the most recently redesigned one? Or was the 2004 Euro Golf already the new version?
Thanks -- from the front, its very obvious to me, but in the crash angle it was harder to tell. The MkV small VWs look very nice. I hope your dad is having a blast with his so far! Another kind of car I've been wanting to own. Then again, I'd always wanted a Mazda, because I enjoy their interpretation of a driver's car, so I'll enjoy what I just got for now.cheekyspanky said:Here's the link to the Mk IV Golf if you can't remember the difference..
They're not considered that small here , the Golf is the third smallest VW after the Lupo (soon to be replaced by the Fox) and the Polo. The Jetta is called the Bora here for some reason (despite being called the Jetta a few generations ago)mkrishnan said:The MkV small VWs look very nice. I hope your dad is having a blast with his so far!
I think so!mkrishnan said:Well, compared to a Phaeton they are! But perhaps I should have said C-segment. They are considered C-seg, aren't they?
We actually use two different systems. Inside the automotive industry, it's much more common for the a/b/c/d/e segment nomenclature to be used. The government, however, uses interior volume, including *cargo space* to determine the size class of a car (but not a truck). This classification is pretty much independent of curb weight and length. So this can get very confusing. For instance, a tall car with relatively little leg-room (the kind of body shape of the Focus, the Echo, etc) gets relatively big interior volume numbers. Most of the US and Japanese c-seg cars -- Corolla, Civic, Focus, Mazda3, etc, sit in the EPA compact class.cheekyspanky said:Can someone explain the American sizes of cars - I see the Golf labelled as a sub compact, so what are the other sizes supposed to be?