Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-12-2017, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Oregon Coast
15,420 posts, read 9,078,700 times
Reputation: 20391

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
But that fuel economy came at the cost of crash safety through weight saving. I remember some of those early IIHS crash test videos and they were shocking. One test included going in reverse at about 5mph into a steel post or *******. In the CRX it left an indention of the post in the rear (bumper and window frame) of the car costing thousands of dollars in damages.
I had a lot of crashes in my Honda CRX and surprisingly enough, it performed pretty well in crashes. The biggest problem, was that even very minor collisions could cause a lot of damage. A 5 mph collision, and you would need a new bumper. Of the most serious crashes, I rear ended a car at about 35 mph. It caused about $1,500 of front end damage. The CRX needed a new hood, new right front fender, new front bumper, and a new headlight. The other car only sustained very minor paint damage.

The last major crash I had, totalled the car. I was rear ended on the freeway. The impact bent the frame, destroyed the bumper, and damaged the hatchback door. I replaced the bumper cover, and the back glass, and the lights, and continued to drive it with a Salvage title for another five years. Even with the bent frame the wheels were still perfectly aligned, and the car continued to operate perfect.

So yeah, for minor collisions, CRXs didn't fair well. In major collisions, the integrity of the car was pretty good for such a small car. In the major crashes I was involved in, I was surprised there wasn't a lot more damage. Having to replace bumpers over 5 mph crashes was the downside.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2017, 02:30 PM
 
5,444 posts, read 6,994,146 times
Reputation: 15147
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
But that fuel economy came at the cost of crash safety through weight saving. I remember some of those early IIHS crash test videos and they were shocking. One test included going in reverse at about 5mph into a steel post or *******. In the CRX it left an indention of the post in the rear (bumper and window frame) of the car costing thousands of dollars in damages.
Crash safety ratings aren't done by damage to the car, they are done by the safety to the people in the vehicle. If I am in an accident, I don't care if the car crumples like a tin can as long as I come out unscathed. It is the vehicles that don't take any of the damage which end up causing injuries to the people in the vehicle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:24 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top