BMW and Audi score poorly in cabrio safety

Messages
1,350
Likes
6
Location
San Fernando Valley, So. CA
#1
Cost isn't necessarily an indicator of safety in convertibles
By Martin Zimmerman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 31, 2007


When it comes to buying a crash-worthy convertible, paying more doesn't always get you more, researchers have found.

With starting prices above $39,000, the BMW 3 Series and the Audi A4 Cabriolet were among the most expensive of 10 ragtops tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, yet they placed near the bottom of the safety rankings.

The institute rated the costly Saab 9-3 and the Volvo C70 — which list at between $35,000 and $40,000 — as the convertibles giving occupants the best chances of surviving accidents.

But entries from Volkswagen and Mitsubishi priced below $30,000 got high marks too....

The lowest-rated car was the Pontiac G6 from General Motors Corp., which received "marginal" ratings for both side and rear collisions and an "acceptable" rating for head-on impacts. The car's compartment held up well during the frontal crash, the institute reported, but the driver's seat came loose on one side, causing a crash dummy's head to slide around the air bag and hit the dashboard...

The Audi 4 and BMW 3 series convertibles performed well in the institute's front-end tests but received marginal ratings for side crashes and poor ratings for rear-end impacts.

Subpar performance in rear-end crashes was typical of all of the tested models except for the top-rated cars from Saab and Volvo...

BMW contended that safety restraints in its vehicle weren't properly adjusted in the rear-end tests, leading to the poor results. The German automaker said BMWs were built to meet a wide variety of crash-test requirements around the globe.

The institute didn't rate the convertibles for rollover protection. Like the other European models, the Audi and BMW convertibles are equipped with pop-up roll bars, which can provide greater protection during a rollover accident...

Front Side Rear-end Base
Make and model crash crash crash price*
Saab 9-3 Good Good Good $37,495
Volvo C70 Good Good Good 39,090
Mitsubishi Eclipse
Spyder Good Good Marginal 25,389
Volkswagen Eos Good Good Marginal 28,110
Chrysler Sebring Good Good Poor 25,470
Toyota Camry Solara Good Acceptable Poor 27,190
Ford Mustang Acceptable Good Poor 24,075
BMW 3 series Good Marginal Poor 43,200
Audi A4 Cabriolet Good Marginal Poor 39,100
Pontiac G6 Acceptable Marginal Marginal 28,750
*2007 model year except for Chrysler Sebring, which is 2008

**

Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Edmunds.com

GO TO LA TIMES.COM, BUSINESS SECTION, AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE TEST VIDEOS. WOW!!!!
 
Messages
4,917
Likes
18
Location
Reading,PA
#4
Subpar performance in rear-end crashes was typical of all of the tested models except for the top-rated cars from Saab and Volvo...
Yes very surprising and disappointing for BMW. But I have to wonder, if that many vehicles did poorly, perhaps the rear end test was indeed flawed as BMW claims?

I saw video on TV. The Pontiac G6 was SCAREY. The top frame of the windshield LITERALLY collapsed almost to the headrest of the driver's seat!
 
Messages
6,984
Likes
0
Location
New Jersey
#5
I was watching the Pontiac G6 Convertible crash test videos on the news the other night and I was not surprised that the car was very unsafe.
I am also not surprised that the Volvo C70 Convertible turned out to be very safe.

I am, however, extremely surprised that BMW and Audi did not score well. I am willing to hear BMW out on their claim of flawed testing, but both companies' vehicles should have performed well at the very least.
 
Messages
4,917
Likes
18
Location
Reading,PA
#6
MrElussive said:
I was watching the Pontiac G6 Convertible crash test videos on the news the other night and I was not surprised that the car was very unsafe.
I am also not surprised that the Volvo C70 Convertible turned out to be very safe.

I am, however, extremely surprised that BMW and Audi did not score well. I am willing to hear BMW out on their claim of flawed testing, but both companies' vehicles should have performed well at the very least.
100% [thumb]
 


Top