Funny how people are so quick to jump onto the Challenger being heavy, when just a year ago the Camaro was portly as well, for the exact same reasons... both being a large 4 door based platform, converted to 2 door use. I'd like to see the Gen V Camaro tested this way too. As both stated above, the older platform will suffer the worst, and more mass results in more momentum in an accident like this. And also stated above, I take these tests with a grain of salt. It won't affect my decision to any one model.
Which is an excellent point. All new cars are immensely safer than the cars of even 10 years ago. I do think of this with all my old cars, my 71 Firebird, my 67 Firebird/Camaro, and especially my 58 Edsel. Crash standards were non-existent back then, but that's a risk I'm taking... just have to try not to run into any brick walls while texting.
Brings a tear to my eyes seeing those special cars test-trashed by dummies.....LOL
These special cars should be exempt...either that or they should be tested at WAT with the tires smoking and all the horses screamin and hollerin and the butt end waggin back and forth all the way flat into a wall if they really have to test them......LOL....
Ok all kidding aside, I read an article recently where someone bought a Hellcat and totaled it 30 minutes after he bought it or something like that....don't recall where I saw the article.
Interesting how the Smart car vs. S Class in the Mercedes advertisement it comes out fine, at IIHS a Smart Car vs only a C Class and it does poor. Bigger is better of equally performing cars in a test against a fixed barrier. I'd have no problem with the Camaro or the Mustang's performance. I don't car as much about the front crash prevention technologies since if you're paying attention, you'll be fine, but I do like them overall and think it is a good direction to go towards for cars in general. It might help keep me from getting rear-ended by someone on their phone. Someday when cars are talking to each other as they approach intersections may also be able to avoid missing stop signs and stop lights leading to side collisions.
No. According to IIHS, collision losses are based only on physical damage to the vehicle when its driver is at fault.
The other loss categories defined by IIHS are:
Property damage: physical damage to other people's vehicles and property
Comprehensive: theft or non-crash related damage
Personal injury: injuries to the driver or passengers, regardless of fault
Medical payment: injuries to the driver or passengers, if the driver is at fault
Bodily injury: injuries caused by the driver to occupants of another vehicle (not sure if it includes people in a crowd that are mowed down by the driver)
Mustang GT rated average or better than average in all loss categories except collision.
Just a nonsense article to allow insurance companies to charge pony cars more...
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
GM Inside News Forum
3.5M posts
83.7K members
Since 2003
A forum community dedicated to GM owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about General Motors news, concepts, releases, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!