Conference terri::cars_uk

    Well, you shoud've seen the news last weekend about a mass carsh on
    some highways around Munich. There were eleven dead or so, many injured
    and some million DM worth of scrap scattered on the highway.
    Let me tell you, the Mercedes' and BMWs looked just as pitiful as the
    Fiat Pandas involved.
    I've read a report by a German test magazine were they said that any
    crash above 40kmh (impact speed) neutralizes all advantages of the
    different models, and it's just a matter of damn luck if you get out of
    there unharmed or if the only way of identifying you is by some tooth
    lying around...
    For security, better drive carefully, and don't rely on the size of the
    car, for we all know that size isn't everything, right?
    ...Paul

re: -1

You're kidding surely ? I remember seeing some accidents in my time where people
have lived and died because of the type of car they drove.

I remember seeing a head-on between a Honda Civic and a Humber Super Snipe...

I had an accident with a drunk in a van. I had *8* people in my Landrover. We
all survived because of the strength of the vehicle.

Need I go on ?

    The test was performed by the TUV and sponsored by AUTO MOTOR UND
    SPORT. Here in France the monthly AUTOMOBILE has published a translated
    version. I suspect other magazines in other countries will do the same.
    
    The interesting thing is that rigidity is not everything.
    
    Energy absorption at the front wings is important. Passenger
    compartment must not be too rigid either. Other important thing is how
    will the stering wheel, dashboard, pedals, ... cope with the crash. The
    2 german cars cited displayed the best average. Also the 2 german cars
    are fitted with some sort of mechanism that prevents the various
    objects cited above to retract ie not smash the driver's face, chest,
    legs.
    
    The photos taken during and after the crash are interesting.
    
    Apparently the "worst case" crash is not applied anywhere today.

    Re: 2
    
    Super Snipe vs. Civic: tank agains a jeep...........
    
    It has been proven by many tests, the havier (bulkier) the car is,
    the more change you have to survive.  (That's why the Volvo 240 series
    still is sold......)
    
    Hans

    oops change should read: chance....

    re .0
    
    Small mistake, there was another German car. Replace SAAB by OPEL
    OMEGA.
    
    When I have time I'll enter the results.

    
    
    
    
    
    I read an article in a magazine last year which was a report on US road
    accidents during 1988. They did not specify types of accident, assuming
    that all makes of car get involved in all types of accident.
    As a previous noter said, so much depends on luck as some people walk
    away from flattened minis whereas others come to grief in their big
    expensive Volvos. This survey was from many thousands of accidents of
    all types in an effort to smooth out the 'luck' factor.
    
    Data from thousands of accidents were collated, and survival and injury
    rates were analysed. I only remember some of the European and Japanese 
    models results.
    
    	Mercedes Benz (all models) were "above average" in both survival
    	rates from serious crashes and injuries sustained in minor
    	collisions.
    
    	Volvo (estates) were "above average" ditto.
    
    	Volvo (saloons) were "average"
    
    	"below average" were VW Golf, Ford Escort.....
    
    	Honda Legend was "above average".....(Rover 800!?....same car).
    
    Wish I could remember where I read it but there does seem to be a
    relucatance to give Joe Public some hard data on what is surely an
    important factor in the process of choosing a car.
    	BMW 3's were only "average", cant remember what they said about 5's
    	and 7's.

	I'd be interested in that sort of information for the British roads;
	I suspect that a car's safety has an awful lot to do with who drives
	it and where.  For example, a large number of XR3 turbos have been
	written off, does that mean that they are unsafe?  There must have
	been thousands of Sierras written off - mainly company cars, would 
	some other make of car have been written off at the same rate by this
	set of drivers?

	Dave

    
    On that vein, I hear the average life of Sierra Cossie is 7 months.
    
    Bill.

    
    .9 SEVEN MONTHS!.....that IS interesting so here's my theory...
    
    ..You've heard of MAD (mutually assured destruction) which has kept the
    armaments industry going for years..then how about MADD (mutually
    assured destructive driving)!!...which is keeping the car industry
    profitable.
    MADD is a devious plot to sell POWER to the people on the basis that
    a customer who is perfectly happy with a bow and arrow until he tries 
    a gun will surely throw away the bow and arrow and buy the gun.
    
    Back in t'good old days we all drove Moggy Minors at 30mph and gestured
    "after you kind sir/madam" at road junctions. That is why so many old
    Minors are still around.....its kind of difficult to drive those
    aggresively. Now put those same Minor drivers into Cosworths/16v XRGTi
    turbo doo dahs and the attrition rate of both cars and drivers
    increases!!......Brilliant....more business for the car companies with
    a little extra on the side for the undertakers too.
    
    I recently had a Rover 416 GSi on hire for a month, 16v fuel injected
    it ENCOURAGES you to have some fun....and I did!...SHE was a ravashing,
    shapely beauty and we had an expensive affair at about 33 mpg
    (apologies for the sexual references here but cars are definitely 'La')
    Now I've opted out of the scheme and run my own Rover 213..super smooth 
    Honda engine but only 70bhp to play with so its 0-60...eventually though 
    I normally get to 55 and call it a day. SHE is a 'plain Jane' but
    rewards me with 44 mpg and I know I'd rather have a wife than a
    mistress!!....Can't wait for the ladies to reply to this one but I
    think Rover 213's will have a much longer average life than Sierra
    Cosworths.
    
    The perpetrators of MADD want you to take out HP to buy more HP so
    BEWARE!! of anything that says "16v", "turbo" or suchlike.
    
    Dave (who only uses 8 of the Rover's 12 valves!)
     

>    I recently had a Rover 416 GSi on hire for a month, 16v fuel injected
>    it ENCOURAGES you to have some fun....and I did!...SHE was a ravashing,
>    shapely beauty and we had an expensive affair at about 33 mpg
>    (apologies for the sexual references here but cars are definitely 'La')

>    Dave (who only uses 8 of the Rover's 12 valves!)
>     

33 mpg. Think yourself lucky. Have you tried starting it and driving rather than
just pushing it. I get only 23-28mpg. 

Dave (who thinks he is using 16v on his 8v Ford!)

          <<< Note 1272.11 by NEWOA::BARRON "Snoopy Vs Red_Barron" >>>
                             -< Hows the nipper? >-

>33 mpg. Think yourself lucky. Have you tried starting it and driving rather than
>just pushing it. I get only 23-28mpg. 



23-28mpg !!!!! good grief the worst I've ever got out of
my BX Turbo Diesel has been 40 mpg (and that was with some heavy
driving)

    re.10
    
    The 213 uses the old A-Series engine not a Honda engine (the 216 uses
    the Honda engine).
    
    Grant

    
    No it doesn't.
    
    The 213's engine is (was?) a Honda engine.
    
    Mark

    
    It was the 216 that had the (dodgy) non-Honda engine.
    
    Bill.

    
    Rover 213 uses Honda 12v 1342cc engine (carb fed).
    Rover 216 uses ARG 'S' series engine same as in Montego and Maestro
    and is either carb fed or fuel injected on the Vitesse.
    New Rover 214 uses K series (British) engine
    New Rover 216 uses Honda engine (built in Swindon)
    
    Old A series engine has NEVER featured in the Rovers
    
    Dave

>>          <<< Note 1272.11 by NEWOA::BARRON "Snoopy Vs Red_Barron" >>>

>    I recently had a Rover 416 GSi on hire for a month, 16v fuel injected
>    it ENCOURAGES you to have some fun....and I did!...SHE was a ravashing,
>    shapely beauty and we had an expensive affair at about 33 mpg
>    (apologies for the sexual references here but cars are definitely 'La')

>    Dave (who only uses 8 of the Rover's 12 valves!)
>     

>>33 mpg. Think yourself lucky. Have you tried starting it and driving rather than
>>just pushing it. I get only 23-28mpg. 

>>Dave (who thinks he is using 16v on his 8v Ford!)
    
>>                  <<< Note 1272.12 by NEWOA::BAILEY "What?" >>>
>>                              -< 23-28mpg !!!!!  >-

>>23-28mpg !!!!! good grief the worst I've ever got out of
>>my BX Turbo Diesel has been 40 mpg (and that was with some heavy
>>driving)

    
    Well I am no slow-coach, known to put my foot down, when presented with
    the opportunity, however I also take it easy when there is NO
    opportunity. I get from my 416 GSi around 30-33 MPG, on the only long
    run I've done (motorway VERY briskly) I achieved 36.5 MPG). You must
    really be lead footed to get as little as you do!.
    
    
    Yes I know the BX turbo D has superb economy, and fantastic
    acceleration. The problem is it starts at 2000 RPM and runs out at 4500
    RPM!. I found this difficult to get used too, and a cramp on pressing
    onward. With the 16valve, my USEFULL rev range is TREBLE that of the BX
    Td and thus you need much less gearchanging to get to the same point.
    
    I miss the economy coming from the diesels: I love the endless
    acceleration now I have a 16v.
    
    
    Richard

    going back to the safety subject...
    
    Which? (the Consumers Association magazine) produces a guide to car
    buying every year. They outline the 'relative' safety of different
    models. This can be a useful guide. however, I do agree it's often
    up to your Guardian Angels looking after you if you do have a smash.
     
    tim

What Car December has an english language reprint of the test.

Seems to me the BMW 520i wins by a clear margin.

This is what it boils down to -
Have the accident in the Bimmer and chances are you'll walk away shaken but not
stirred whereas in one or two of the other cars you'd have a good chance of
being critically or fately injured.

BTW - BMW is the only one of the manufacturers to include the "worst case" crash
as part of their safety development. If you want to protect yourself and your
family in the case of an accident then - DON'T - buy a Volvo.

    Business Week recently ran an article with information from a U.S.
    insurance body that looked at accidents involving injury, and that
    showed that Volvo 7 series saloons and estates were "safest". However
    given that we will believe what we want to about our own choice of car,
    even to post purchase rationalising then whatever the magazines print
    will be of interest only when it makes us feel good.
    
    I would not have believed that a Volvo 340 saloon was a particularly
    "safe" motor, but in the showroom of Cloverleaf in Basingstoke was the
    remains of one after it had been hit in the side,mid-section, by a
    Sherpa van loaded up to the roof. The driver of the Volvo walked away
    with minor injuries, and the Sherpa bounced off and ended up in a
    field. Just another anecdote about the random nature of road accidents
    and the entirely unpredictable outcome that will occur.

Hey, hang on a minute, where did the volvo bounce to? It's not going to be
heavier than a Sherpa van!

Of course you realize the study wasn't just of the structural integrity of
the vehicle, but how the vehicle is driven as well.  People who buy the
7 series Volvos tend to drive a little slower and/or conservatively than
other types of cars, so the accident rate would be lower because of that
as well.

Dave

    
    .22.....EXACTLY!...Which gets us back to the average life of vehicles
    	again (Sierra Cosworth short life expectancy). I still think there
    is more chance of suffering injury in a powerful vehicle over a given
    number of miles as compared to a less powerful one (although some
    people drive 70BHP cars like they had 150 BHP!..there you have BIG
    trouble.) Ever seen a picture of an Autobahn pile up?...all those big
    Mercs and BMW's smashed up in the outside lane with the occupants
    having no chance at those speeds EVEN those particular vehicles...while
    the VW POLO owner who was tootling along at 60 in the inside lane when
    it happened (usually) lives to drive another day.....but it all depends
    on the 'Angels'.
    
    Dave

    Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly..........
    
    Cheers,
    Flying Dutchman
    

    Ah. There fore the safest car clearly has no engine. Yes, I accept
    that.
    
    Progress would be a bit limited, though.
    
    Steve

    This particular Volvo, FWIW, was a 340.