Would you be a vehicle with low safety ratings if it saved you a lot of money?

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

That Pontiac has a lot of size and weight, which really helps in case of an accident.

A Grand AM only weighs about 3,000 lbs and I believe it was classified as a compact. A Grand Prix, OTOH, I would be less concerned about, same as a Bonneville because there is size and decent weight to them. Plus, I think safety features were better in the Grand Prix and Bonneville. In 2005, the Grand Am was coming to the end of its life cycle, as the G6 was on the horizon, so GM did not pour anything into the last couple of years in terms of advancement. For the OP, with a long highway commute, I'd look for something with more modern levels of safety, since even in 2005, the Grand AM lagged in that regard because it was based on an older design that was due to be replaced, and tests were not as stringent as in subsequent years.

[phlinak]

I would not drive a vehicle with low safety ratings to save a lot of money because neither my life nor my physical mobility are replaceable.

Many things in life are more valuable than money and these are two of them.

[Hollywood]

I'd totally have an old Honda CRX. That thing is a tin can on wheels, though. Great fun car, but I wouldn't want to get hit by a tractor trailer while driving one. I think they weigh somewhere around 1800-1900 lbs?

[patches403]

I would always buy the safest car my budget would allow. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, in many serious accidents, the car you're driving can make a big difference in living vs. dying or at the very least minor injuries vs. months of recovery. I figure I may not be able to control other drivers, but at least I can improve my odds if I can't avoid the accident. No reason to drive a car with a poor safety record when there are many safer cars to choose from and you can find many safer options than a 10 year old Grand Am no matter what your budget.

I'm reminded of a couple of recent accidents in my area. One of them, a 93 Nissan Sentra was in a drivers-side head on with a Toyota Tacoma. It was on a highway, but the weather was rainy so less than full highway speed - probably about a 50 mph collision. The two people in the car died, the driver instantly, the passenger a few days later - the driver of the truck (who was the one at fault) was barely injured. I can guarantee you if they had been in something like a later model Toyota Camry, the passenger certainly would have lived and the driver would have had good odds to survive as well (although he certainly would have been seriously injured). The passenger in this accident died from a head injury because she hit her head on the inside of the car since there were no passenger airbags. If the driver had been driving something heavier than a Camry - say a newer 7 series BMW, the passenger probably would have walked away from the accident with barely a scratch and the driver would have had nearly a 100% chance of surviving the accident. The really sad thing was the driver of the Nissan was a doctor making 400k a year so he could certainly afford a better car; he just choose to drive a 21 year old compact car with few safety features because he was into "recycling". I doubt his love of recycling is much comfort to either his family or the family of his dead passenger (his co-worker).

The other accident was a 7 car chain accident where a driver of a full-size truck towing a trailer didn't stop and ran into the back of one or two cars that were in turn pushed into other cars and so on. Speed maybe 50- 55 mph so completely survivable for modern vehicles. Out of the 7 cars, the only person who died was the passenger in an 1995 Honda Civic. If she had been in a more modern car and/or a larger car, the odds are very good she would have survived.